Makisa Management v Makan Llc [2020] DIFC SCT 393 (21 December 2020)
The Defendant failed to provide the contractual two months’ notice required for termination under the Agreement, and the alleged incompetence and gross negligence were not substantiated to justify immediate termination. The Claimant is entitled to AED 19,000 in lieu of notice.
- Citation
- [2020] DIFC SCT 393
- Parties
- Claimant: Makisa Management; Defendant: Makan LLC
- Jurisdiction
- United Arab Emirates
- Judgment Date
- 21 December 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Claim allowed
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Termination of Contract, Notice Period, Jurisdiction, Consultancy Agreement
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Makisa Management
Claimant
Makan LLC
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to provide the contractual two months’ notice period upon termination
- 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment in lieu of notice under the Agreement
- 3 Whether the Defendant’s allegations of incompetence and gross negligence justified immediate termination
Ratio Decidendi
The Defendant failed to provide the contractual two months’ notice required for termination under the Agreement, and the alleged incompetence and gross negligence were not substantiated to justify immediate termination. The Claimant is entitled to AED 19,000 in lieu of notice.
Court Disposition
Claim allowed
Orders
- The Defendant shall pay the Claimant AED 19,000.
- The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the DIFC Courts’ filing fee in the amount AED 997.49.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment