Normandie v Norval [2024] DIFC SCT 105 (12 July 2024)

Normandie v Norval [2024] DIFC SCT 105 (12 July 2024)

There was no pending dispute regarding the awarded sum; the Claimant was obliged to pay and in default was liable for 60 days' entitlements. The restrictive covenant's 5 kilometre radius was reasonable and enforceable as found by the lower court; no evidence was provided to challenge this finding.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] DIFC SCT 105
Parties
Claimant: Normandie; Defendant: Norval
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
12 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal Application / Permission to Appeal Refused
Outcome
Both applications for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Unpaid Entitlements, Gardening Leave, Restrictive Covenants, Appeal Procedure
Employment Law Unpaid Entitlements Gardening Leave Restrictive Covenants Appeal Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Normandie

Claimant

Norval

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Application / Permission to Appeal Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was obliged to pay the awarded sum pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the restrictive covenant in the employment contract was unreasonable in duration and geographical scope

Ratio Decidendi

There was no pending dispute regarding the awarded sum; the Claimant was obliged to pay and in default was liable for 60 days' entitlements. The restrictive covenant's 5 kilometre radius was reasonable and enforceable as found by the lower court; no evidence was provided to challenge this finding.

Court Disposition

Both applications for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Claimant’s Application is refused
  • Defendant’s Application is refused