Mirmi v Mesaab Tehcnology Limited [2023] DIFC SCT 272 (10 October 2023)

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS BEFORE SCT JUDGE AND REGISTRAR AYESHA BIN KALBAN BETWEEN MIRMI Claimant and MESAAB TEHCNOLOGY LIMITED Defendant Hearing : 28 September 2023 Judgment : 10 October 2023 JUDGMENT OF SCT JUDGE AND REGISTRAR AYESHA BIN KALBAN UPON this Claim being filed on 24 July 2023 AND UPON a hearing having been listed before SCT Judge and Registrar Ayesha Bin Kalban on 28 September 2023, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Claimant’s claims are dismissed. 2. Each party shall bear their own costs. Issued by: Hayley Norton SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar Date of issue: 10 October 2023 At: 2pm THE REASONS The Parties 1. The Claimant is Mirmi Gil (the “Claimant”), an individual filing a claim against the Defendant. 2. The Defendant is Mesaab Tehcnology Limited [sic] (the “Defendant”), a company situated in the DIFC, Dubai, UAE. The Claim 3. The Claimant brought this Claim seeking an order for the Defendant to register her as a shareholder on its company register, and for the payment of the fees paid by the Claimant to her lawyer, who she has instructed to assist her in obtaining the registration, in the amount of AED 6,300. This arises out of a former employment relationship between the parties, where the Claimant was previously employed by the Defendant as a Commercial Manager (then, a Commercial Vice President) pursuant to an employment contract dated 26 December 2019, and a further contract dated 4 April 2021 (the “Contract”). Pursuant to the Contract, the Claimant was entitled to equity stock in accordance with its Article 3. 4. In filing her claim, the Claimant has set out the claim value to be AED 6,667 which appears to be the sum of her expense claim and the court fee applicable to the filing of this claim in the amount of AED 367. The minimum fee for filing a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal is AED 367.50, which was the amount ultimately paid by the Claimant, to which she would have been entitled to should she be successful in her claim. 5. At the time of the Hearing, it appeared that the Claimant did obtain the registration of shares in her name and that the Defendant had ultimately completed the transfer, and provided her with a share certificate on 10 July 2023. The Claimant submits that had she not instructed counsel, the Defendant would not have made such transfer. She relies on a series of events surrounding the transfer which, she submits, demonstrate that the Defendant had no intention of completing until she instructed counsel. 6. The Defendant responds by taking the position that the Claimant sought counsel of her own prerogative, and that the Defendant followed the process set out in the relevant DIFC Laws in order to facilitate the transfer of the shares to the Claimant’s name, and in fact did so within 45 days of the Claimant’s last working day as an employee of the Defendant. The Issues 7. This dispute is governed by DIFC Employment Law No. 4 of 2021 (the “DIFC Employment Law”) in conjunction with the relevant Employment Contract. Is the Claimant entitled to a reimbursement of the fees paid by the Claimant to seek legal assistance in obtaining a transfer of shares in her name from the Defendant? 8. The parties do not dispute the Claimant’s entitlements to the shares, therefore I do not propose to set out the relevant wording of the Contract hereto. I therefore turn to analyse whether the Claimant has sufficiently proven her entitlement to such an expense claim, given that no entitlement arises out of the DIFC Employment Law. The Claimant has not put forward any legal bases or arguments to support her claim. 9. In response, the Defendant submits that it has indeed followed due process and completed in the transfer in a timely manner. The Defendant also drew my attention to Rule 53.79 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”) which reads as follows: “53.79 The General Rule is that each party shall bear its own costs. However, the SCT may order a party to a small claim to pay a sum to another party in respect of that other party’s costs, fees and expenses, including those relating to an appeal, where: (1) such part of any Court or tribunal fees paid by that other party as the SCT may consider appropriate; (2) such further costs as the SCT may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably.” 10. Upon review of the evidence submitted, I am of the view that the Defendant has not acted unreasonably in a fashion that would warrant an order against it, thus varying from the general rule set out in RDC 53.79. 11. I also take the view that the Claimant has not submitted enough evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant’s transfer of shares was only completed as a result of her instruction of counsel. In absence of any legal arguments on this point I make the order that the Claimant’s claim must be dismissed henceforth. Conclusion 12. In light of the aforementioned, I find that the Claimant’s claim be dismissed. 13. Each party shall bear their own costs. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII