Mutla v Mehero [2023] DIFC SCT 202 (14 December 2023)

Mutla v Mehero [2023] DIFC SCT 202 (14 December 2023)

The Defendant's application to set aside the default order was filed 132 days after the order was issued, far outside the 7-day time limit prescribed by RDC 53.35. The Defendant failed to provide a sufficient or credible reason for the delay or for an extension of time. The evidence showed the Defendant was aware of the order as early as 20 July 2023. Therefore, the application was dismissed for being out of time.

Citation
[2023] DIFC SCT 202
Parties
Claimant: Mutla; Defendant: Mehero
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
14 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Application to Set Aside Default Order / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside; Hearing on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Orders, Service of Process, Time Limits for Applications, Employment Entitlements
Employment Law Civil Procedure Setting Aside Default Orders Service of Process Time Limits for Applications Employment Entitlements

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

Mutla

Claimant

Mehero

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Application to Set Aside Default Order / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside; Hearing on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's application to set aside the default order was filed within the required time limit under RDC 53.35
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant provided sufficient reason for the delay in filing the application
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant had knowledge of the claim and order prior to the application

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant's application to set aside the default order was filed 132 days after the order was issued, far outside the 7-day time limit prescribed by RDC 53.35. The Defendant failed to provide a sufficient or credible reason for the delay or for an extension of time. The evidence showed the Defendant was aware of the order as early as 20 July 2023. Therefore, the application was dismissed for being out of time.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Defendant's application to set aside the order is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear its own costs.