Marloo v Marlaa [2023] DIFC CT 197 (19 July 2023)

Marloo v Marlaa [2023] DIFC CT 197 (19 July 2023)

The Claimant is not entitled to payment for a notice period because Article 62(2) and any agreed longer notice period under Article 62(3) do not apply during probation, as expressly excluded by Article 62(6) of the DIFC Employment Law. There is no legal requirement for notice period payment during probation.

Citation
[2023] DIFC CT 197
Parties
Claimant: MARLOO; Defendant: MARLAA
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
19 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Dispute Small Claims Tribunal / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Probation Period, Notice Period, Employment Termination, DIFC Employment Law
Employment Law Probation Period Notice Period Employment Termination DIFC Employment Law

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MARLOO

Claimant

MARLAA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Employment Dispute Small Claims Tribunal / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to a 60-day notice period payment upon termination during probation under the Agreement and DIFC Employment Law

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant is not entitled to payment for a notice period because Article 62(2) and any agreed longer notice period under Article 62(3) do not apply during probation, as expressly excluded by Article 62(6) of the DIFC Employment Law. There is no legal requirement for notice period payment during probation.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimant’s claim is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear his own costs.