Licia v Liesma [2022] DIFC CT 322 (12 October 2022)

Licia v Liesma [2022] DIFC CT 322 (12 October 2022)

The Claimant was only entitled to two weeks’ notice during probation as per the Employment Contract, which was provided. No evidence supported a claim for moral damages. Therefore, no further compensation was due.

Citation
[2022] DIFC CT 322
Parties
Claimant: Licia; Defendant: Liesma
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Dispute (small Claims Tribunal) / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Probationary Termination, Notice Period, Moral Damages, Employment Contract Interpretation
Employment Law Probationary Termination Notice Period Moral Damages Employment Contract Interpretation

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

Parties

Licia

Claimant

Liesma

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Dispute (small Claims Tribunal) / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Claimant entitled to compensation beyond the notice period under the Employment Contract?
  2. 2 Is the Claimant entitled to moral damages for stress allegedly caused by the Defendant?

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was only entitled to two weeks’ notice during probation as per the Employment Contract, which was provided. No evidence supported a claim for moral damages. Therefore, no further compensation was due.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimant’s Claims shall be dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.