Harlow v Hattie [2017] DIFC SCT 105 (13 June 2017)

Harlow v Hattie [2017] DIFC SCT 105 (13 June 2017)

The Claimant was not responsible for the delayed move-out as the delay was caused by the Defendant's failure to provide correct documentation and signature for the NOC, which was necessary for building management to permit the move. The Claimant had made all reasonable preparations and was not residing in the premises after the contract end date. Therefore, the Defendant was not entitled to deduct for overstay, and the Claimant is entitled to reimbursement of the remainder of the security deposit.

Citation
[2017] DIFC SCT 105
Parties
Claimant: Harlow; Defendant: Hattie
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
13 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Security Deposit, Tenancy Termination, Non Performance, Overstay, Building Management Procedures
Contract Law Landlord and Tenant Security Deposit Tenancy Termination Non Performance Overstay Building Management Procedures

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

Parties

Harlow

Claimant

Hattie

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was responsible for the delayed move-out and alleged overstay
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant was entitled to deduct from the security deposit for overstay and painting

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was not responsible for the delayed move-out as the delay was caused by the Defendant's failure to provide correct documentation and signature for the NOC, which was necessary for building management to permit the move. The Claimant had made all reasonable preparations and was not residing in the premises after the contract end date. Therefore, the Defendant was not entitled to deduct for overstay, and the Claimant is entitled to reimbursement of the remainder of the security deposit.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • The Defendant shall pay the Claimant AED 2,000 as reimbursement of the remainder of the security deposit.