Lexi Consulting (Lana) v Layton [2019] DIFC SCT 318 (27 February 2020)

Lexi Consulting (Lana) v Layton [2019] DIFC SCT 318 (27 February 2020)

The Claimant failed to prove entitlement to the claimed fees and termination fee due to lack of written termination and insufficient performance. The Defendant established that only 20% of Phase 2 was performed, entitling him to reimbursement of 80% of the Phase 2 fee. The upfront payment for Phase 1 was non-refundable per contract terms. The counterclaim succeeded in part for partial reimbursement of Phase 2 fees.

Citation
[2019] DIFC SCT 318
Parties
Claimant/counter Defendant: Lexi Consulting (Lana); Defendant/counter Claimant: Layton
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
27 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal (sct) Contractual Dispute / Final Judgment After Hearing and Post Hearing Submissions
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds in part.
Legal Topics
Partial Performance, Termination of Contract, Damages, Consultancy Agreements, Expectation Loss, Remoteness of Damages
Contract Law Commercial Law Partial Performance Termination of Contract Damages Consultancy Agreements Expectation Loss Remoteness of Damages

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

Parties

Lexi Consulting (Lana)

Claimant/counter Defendant

Layton

Defendant/counter Claimant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal (sct) Contractual Dispute / Final Judgment After Hearing and Post Hearing Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to outstanding consultancy fees and termination fee under the contract and addendum
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is entitled to reimbursement for partial or non-performance of consultancy services

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to prove entitlement to the claimed fees and termination fee due to lack of written termination and insufficient performance. The Defendant established that only 20% of Phase 2 was performed, entitling him to reimbursement of 80% of the Phase 2 fee. The upfront payment for Phase 1 was non-refundable per contract terms. The counterclaim succeeded in part for partial reimbursement of Phase 2 fees.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim succeeds in part.

Orders

  • Claimant’s claim dismissed in entirety.
  • Claimant to pay Defendant AED 147,000.