Nashtar v Nasiruddin [2024] DIFC SCT 351 (11 October 2024)

Nashtar v Nasiruddin [2024] DIFC SCT 351 (11 October 2024)

The contract is valid as no sufficient evidence of forgery was provided. Both parties contributed to project delays, but the Claimant failed to complete works within the stipulated deadline and did not obtain required approvals. Payment is due for completed work as per Defendant's payment certificate, not the Claimant's proforma invoice. The penalty for delay is enforceable against the Claimant. The Claimant is entitled to two months' accommodation fees. Claims for descoped work and unquantified penalties are dismissed.

Citation
[2024] DIFC SCT 351
Parties
Claimant/defendant in Counterclaim: Nashtar; Defendant/claimant in Counterclaim: Nasiruddin
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim and counterclaim both succeed in part.
Legal Topics
Construction Contracts, Delay Penalties, Jurisdiction, Counterclaims, Payment Disputes
Contract Law Civil Procedure Construction Contracts Delay Penalties Jurisdiction Counterclaims Payment Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nashtar

Claimant/defendant in Counterclaim

Nasiruddin

Defendant/claimant in Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of contract and alleged forgery
  2. 2 Entitlement to payment for completed works
  3. 3 Entitlement to penalty for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The contract is valid as no sufficient evidence of forgery was provided. Both parties contributed to project delays, but the Claimant failed to complete works within the stipulated deadline and did not obtain required approvals. Payment is due for completed work as per Defendant's payment certificate, not the Claimant's proforma invoice. The penalty for delay is enforceable against the Claimant. The Claimant is entitled to two months' accommodation fees. Claims for descoped work and unquantified penalties are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim and counterclaim both succeed in part.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant AED 39,366.63 for works and accommodation.
  • Defendant to pay Claimant AED 1,968.33 as filing fee.