Lendro v Mr. Lutis [2020] DIFC SCT 166 (23 July 2020)

Lendro v Mr. Lutis [2020] DIFC SCT 166 (23 July 2020)

The Claimant is entitled to terminate the Second Agreement due to non-performance caused by circumstances beyond the parties' control (Covid-19 travel restrictions), and is entitled to restitution of the deposit under DIFC Contract Law. The automatic extension period has elapsed with no resolution, and indefinite extension is not reasonable.

Citation
[2020] DIFC SCT 166
Parties
Claimant: Liberty; First Defendant: Lance Real Estate Broker; Second Defendant: Lucian; Third Defendant: Lilyana; Fourth Defendant: Lucille; Fifth Defendant: Lucca; Sixth Defendant: Lacey; Seventh Defendant: Lexi; Eighth Defendant: Lawson
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in full
Legal Topics
Contract Termination, Restitution, Covid 19 Impact on Contracts, Real Estate Transactions, Jurisdiction
Contract Law Property Law Contract Termination Restitution Covid 19 Impact on Contracts Real Estate Transactions Jurisdiction

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liberty

Claimant

Lance Real Estate Broker

First Defendant

Lucian

Second Defendant

Lilyana

Third Defendant

Lucille

Fourth Defendant

Lucca

Fifth Defendant

Lacey

Sixth Defendant

Lexi

Seventh Defendant

Lawson

Eighth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to terminate the Second Agreement for non-performance
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to restitution of the deposit
  3. 3 Whether penalties or extensions apply under the Second Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant is entitled to terminate the Second Agreement due to non-performance caused by circumstances beyond the parties' control (Covid-19 travel restrictions), and is entitled to restitution of the deposit under DIFC Contract Law. The automatic extension period has elapsed with no resolution, and indefinite extension is not reasonable.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in full

Orders

  • The First Defendant shall pay the Claimant AED 142,000.
  • The Defendants shall pay the Claimant the court fee in the sum of USD 1,933.29.