Olive v Onyx [2025] DIFC SCT 042 (19 September 2025)

Olive v Onyx [2025] DIFC SCT 042 (19 September 2025)

The Judge erred in law by granting the employer a right to claim damages for excess vacation leave under Article 28(2) of the DIFC Employment Law, which only permits deduction from sums otherwise due to the employee on termination, not an affirmative claim. The appeal on this ground is allowed and the order for payment of AED 49,018.86 is set aside. The other grounds of appeal lack merit and are refused.

Citation
[2025] DIFC SCT 042
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Olive; Defendant/respondent: Onyx
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
19 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order for payment of AED 49,018.86 set aside; other grounds of appeal refused; each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Gross Misconduct, Vacation Leave Deduction, Burden of Proof, Written Reasons for Dismissal
Employment Law Summary Dismissal Gross Misconduct Vacation Leave Deduction Burden of Proof Written Reasons for Dismissal

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olive

Claimant/applicant

Onyx

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 28(2) of DIFC Employment Law permits an employer to claim affirmative damages for excess leave taken when no payment is due to the employee on termination
  2. 2 Whether the Judge misapplied the burden of proof and relied on insufficient evidence in finding gross misconduct
  3. 3 Whether failure to provide written reasons for dismissal under Article 64 of DIFC Employment Law constitutes a material procedural error

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge erred in law by granting the employer a right to claim damages for excess vacation leave under Article 28(2) of the DIFC Employment Law, which only permits deduction from sums otherwise due to the employee on termination, not an affirmative claim. The appeal on this ground is allowed and the order for payment of AED 49,018.86 is set aside. The other grounds of appeal lack merit and are refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order for payment of AED 49,018.86 set aside; other grounds of appeal refused; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal paragraph 2 of the Order is granted; otherwise refused.
  • Appeal against paragraph 2 of the Order is allowed and that part of the Order is set aside.