Marut v Mostar [2023] DIFC CT 030 (15 May 2023)

Marut v Mostar [2023] DIFC CT 030 (15 May 2023)

There are no realistic prospects of success on appeal as the lower court was entitled to find the basic salary was AED 6,000, and claims for loss of reputation are not compensable under DIFC law.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] DIFC CT 030
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Marut; Respondent/defendant: Mostar
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
15 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application
Outcome
permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Appeal Procedure, Salary Dispute, Breach of Contract, Loss of Reputation
Employment Law Contract Law Appeal Procedure Salary Dispute Breach of Contract Loss of Reputation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marut

Appellant/claimant

Mostar

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower court erred in finding the basic salary was AED 6,000 instead of AED 5,000
  2. 2 Whether the lower court erred in not finding breach of contract by Mostar
  3. 3 Whether compensation for loss of reputation is available under DIFC law

Ratio Decidendi

There are no realistic prospects of success on appeal as the lower court was entitled to find the basic salary was AED 6,000, and claims for loss of reputation are not compensable under DIFC law.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Permission to appeal is dismissed.
  • The judgment of the lower court stands.