Makisa Management v Makan Llc [2020] DIFC SCT 393 (21 December 2020)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makisa Management

Claimant

Makan LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Judgment After Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to provide the contractual two months’ notice period upon termination
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment in lieu of notice under the Agreement
  3. 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.