Miklay v Midhal [2023] DIFC CT 221 (16 August 2023)

Miklay v Midhal [2023] DIFC CT 221 (16 August 2023)

The Claimant was not responsible for the delay; responsibility for obtaining approvals rested with the Defendant. Claimant performed obligations as per Agreement and is entitled to payment for invoices and interest.

Citation
[2023] DIFC CT 221
Parties
Claimant: Miklay; Defendant: Midhal
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
16 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Consultancy Service Agreement, Unpaid Invoices, Project Management, Interest on Delayed Payment
Contract Law Commercial Law Consultancy Service Agreement Unpaid Invoices Project Management Interest on Delayed Payment

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miklay

Claimant

Midhal

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay was caused by the Claimant or Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant is entitled to payment for unsettled invoices and interest

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant was not responsible for the delay; responsibility for obtaining approvals rested with the Defendant. Claimant performed obligations as per Agreement and is entitled to payment for invoices and interest.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant AED 42,296.27 (including interest)
  • Defendant to pay Claimant court fee AED 2,067.18