Fatemah v Farrell LLC [2014] DIFC SCT 082 (09 March 2014)

Fatemah v Farrell LLC [2014] DIFC SCT 082 (09 March 2014)

The Defendant is not liable for the incident as the absence of a PRV, which caused the leakage, was not specified in the drawings or bill of quantities provided by the Claimant’s consultant, and there is no evidence the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care.

Citation
[2014] DIFC SCT 082
Parties
Claimant: Fatemah; Defendant: Farrell LLC
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
09 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Contractual Liability, Scope of Work, Defective Works, Causation, Damages
Contract Law Construction Law Contractual Liability Scope of Work Defective Works Causation 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fatemah

Claimant

Farrell LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is liable for water leakage and resulting damages under the contract for MEP works
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or deviated from the contract specifications

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant is not liable for the incident as the absence of a PRV, which caused the leakage, was not specified in the drawings or bill of quantities provided by the Claimant’s consultant, and there is no evidence the Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant’s claim is dismissed
  • Each party shall bear their own costs