CFI 003/2012 Marwan Ahmad Lutfi v The Dubai International Financial Centre Authority

November 03, 2015 court of first instance - Orders,Orders

Claim No. CFI 003/2012

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

MARWAN AHMAD LUTFI

Claimant

and

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE AUTHORITY

Defendant

ORDER WITH REASONS OF JUSTICE SIR ANTHONY COLMAN

UPON reviewing the Judgment of Justice Sir Anthony Colman dated 4 August 2013 finding in favour of the Defendant

AND UPON reviewing the Defendant’s submissions on the costs of the proceedings dated 2 September 2013

AND UPON reviewing the Claimant’s submissions in reply dated 12 September 2013

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

The Claimant shall pay the Defendant’s costs of these proceedings, up to the conclusion of the hearing in the CFI, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.

Issued by:

Natasha Bakirci

Assistant Registrar

Date: 3 November 2015

At: 10am

REASONS

The claim in these proceedings was heard by me at a trial in the CFI on 11-12 February 2013. The Claimant was employed by the Defendant in a highly remunerated management role until his employment was terminated on 4 December 2011. The complicated chain of events leading up to the Defendant taking that course is set out in detail in my judgment.

The Claimant commenced proceedings in which he claimed as follows:

“(a) Reinstatement of his employment by the Defendant with payment of wages lost (pursuant to Article 68(2)(b) of the DIFC Employment Law 2005);

(b) Damages for breach of his contract of employment, and for defamation;

(d) Compensation pursuant to Article 68(2)(d) of the DIFC Employment Law 2005;

(e) Any payments considered due and owing under any provision of the DIFC Employment Law 2005, in particular Article 68(2)(e);

(f) Any other determination that the Director of Employment Standards sees fit to order pursuant to Article 68 of the DIFC Employment Law 2005.”

By my judgment issued on 4 August 2013 it was decided that the Claimant’s submissions must be rejected and that consequently the claim failed.

The Defendant now applies for the costs of the proceedings. It argues that costs should follow the event and that the general rule stated in RDC Rule 38.7 should apply, namely that the unsuccessful party should be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party.

The Claimant argues that the Court should exercise its discretion under RDC 38.6 and 38.7 by making no order as to costs.

The Claimant deploys arguments in support of this proposition which are identical to those advanced on behalf of Hana Al Herz, wife of the Claimant, and herself the Claimant in Claim No. CFI 011/2012.

It is unnecessary to repeat here the reasons which caused me to reject the Claimant’s submissions in Claim CFI 011/2012.

For the reasons given in that judgment I conclude that the order for costs in this case should be that the Claimant should pay the Defendant’s costs of these proceedings, up to the conclusion of the hearing in the CFI, together with the costs of the Defendant’s present application for costs, such costs to be assessed if not agreed.