Landin v (1) Lakhan (2) Lakshmi [2020] DIFC SCT 177 (29 July 2020)

Landin v (1) Lakhan (2) Lakshmi [2020] DIFC SCT 177 (29 July 2020)

The Defendants are contractually obliged to pay the Claimant for legal services rendered as per the Agreement. They failed to raise timely objections to invoices, and COVID-19 does not excuse payment. Allegations of professional misconduct are not relevant to the contractual payment dispute and should be addressed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] DIFC SCT 177
Parties
Claimant: Landin; First Defendant: Lakhan; Second Defendant: Lakshmi
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
29 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal (sct) Claim / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Legal Services Agreement, Unpaid Invoices, Counterclaim, Jurisdiction, Force Majeure (covid 19), Professional Conduct
Contract Law Civil Procedure Legal Services Agreement Unpaid Invoices Counterclaim Jurisdiction Force Majeure (covid 19) Professional Conduct

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Landin

Claimant

Lakhan

First Defendant

Lakshmi

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal (sct) Claim / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants are contractually obliged to pay the Claimant for legal services rendered under the Agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' counterclaim for refund is valid
  3. 3 Whether COVID-19 constitutes a force majeure event excusing payment

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants are contractually obliged to pay the Claimant for legal services rendered as per the Agreement. They failed to raise timely objections to invoices, and COVID-19 does not excuse payment. Allegations of professional misconduct are not relevant to the contractual payment dispute and should be addressed to the regulatory authority. The counterclaim for refund is dismissed as unsupported by evidence or contract.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Claimant AED 147,542.44 plus 9% interest per annum from judgment date until payment.
  • Defendants to pay Claimant court fee of AED 7,377.12.