Mab v Mace [2023] DIFC SCT 206 (25 December 2023)

Mab v Mace [2023] DIFC SCT 206 (25 December 2023)

The Claimant failed to complete the snagging works and rectify defective tiles as required under the contract, and was not entitled to the final payment. The Defendant acted reasonably in preparing and insisting on rectification of defects. The Defendant's counterclaims for costs of tile rectification and delay were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] DIFC SCT 206
Parties
Claimant: MAB; Defendant: MACE
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
25 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Construction Dispute / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim partly allowed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Defective Workmanship, Delay Damages, Counterclaim, Snagging Lists, Remedies for Breach
Contract Law Construction Law Breach of Contract Defective Workmanship Delay Damages Counterclaim Snagging Lists Remedies for Breach

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

Parties

MAB

Claimant

MACE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Construction Dispute / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to final payment under the renovation agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant is entitled to damages for defective workmanship and delay
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's counterclaims for costs related to tiles, delay, and other damages are valid

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to complete the snagging works and rectify defective tiles as required under the contract, and was not entitled to the final payment. The Defendant acted reasonably in preparing and insisting on rectification of defects. The Defendant's counterclaims for costs of tile rectification and delay were substantiated by evidence and not effectively challenged by the Claimant. The court awarded the Defendant damages for defective tiles, delay, and associated costs, and dismissed the Claimant's claim.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim partly allowed

Orders

  • The Claimant’s claim is dismissed.
  • The Claimant shall pay the Defendant AED 246,732.57 for the counterclaim under Tiles.