Claim No: CFI 013/2009
THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE IN THE NAME OF HIS HIGHNESS SHEIKH MOHAMMAD BIN RASHID AL MAKTOUM, RULER OF DUBAI
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Between
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
This Order is issued in replacement of the Order dated 21st June 2009 at 3:00pm.
In accordance with rule 13.7 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts and UPON the request of the Claimant dated 17 June 2009 for a default judgment (amount to be decided by the court) it is found as follows:
1. The Defendant has not filed with the
DIFC Courts an admission or defence to the Claim.
2. The requested default judgment is granted.
3. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the following amounts as set out in the Claim:
• Payment in lieu of the contractual notice period of three months being £24,999
• Payment in lieu of accrued and unused holiday entitlement being £3,557.31
• End of
Service Gratuity entitlement under DIFC Employment Law being £5,208.03
• Unused air tickets for Claimant and immediate family being £5,000
Less an amount of £10,000 which it is agreed by the Claimant has already been paid. The total amount payable under this paragraph 3 is £28,764.34 or the US Dollar equivalent at the time of payment.
4. The Claimant is awarded costs in the sum of AED 84275.14.
5. The Claimant is awarded interest of £246.36 or the US Dollar equivalent at the time of payment.
6. The Defendant is to comply with this judgment within 14 days.
Amna Al Owais
Deputy Registrar
Date of Issue: 25 June 2009
At 04:00 pm
Reasons for Default Judgment
Claim No: CFI 013/2009
THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Between
| LESLIE WOOLASTON | Claimant |
| - V -LIBERTAS CAPITAL LIMITED | Defendant |
REASONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
DATED 21 JUNE 2009
1. On June 17, 2009 the Claimant requested the
Court to issue a default judgment in an amount to be decided by the Court. The ground provided by the Claimant in the request was that the Defendant had not filed an acknowledgement of service to the original Claim. The original Claim had been filed with the Courts on June 1, 2009. In addition, on June 1, 2009 the Claimant had filed with the DIFC Courts a certificate of service, containing the statement of truth signed on behalf of the Claimant's solicitor, stating that the Claim form had been delivered to or left at a 'permitted place', being the Defendant's principal office.
2. Although not mentioned in the request for default judgment, it is implicit in the Claimant's ground for the default judgment that the requisite period for the filing of an acknowledgement of service by the Defendant (as set down in the Rules of the DIFC Courts (section 11.5) ("RDC")) had expired.
3. The Claim is that the Claimant was made redundant by the Defendant on October 22, 2008. It is said in the Claim form that the termination was on notice and that the Defendant 'acknowledged and promised to pay' certain amounts. Those amounts have been awarded to the Claimant in the Default Judgment.
4. The Claim also sought compensation for an arrangement fee incurred in taking out a second mortgage, interest due on the second mortgage and compensation for loss suffered as a result of the diminution of the UK Pound Sterling.
5. Lastly, the Claimant sought interest on all sums claimed and costs.
6. In relation to these compensation claims, it is not clear, either from the Claim or the request for default judgment, the basis of such requests. It is not contended in either document that the contract was terminated in breach. Equally, the Claim form does not make it clear if the remedies sought are based on the 'promise to pay' or for breach of contract and, in either case, on what basis the compensation sought is due and payable.
7. In relation to interest,
rule 13.15 of the RDC provides that the amount of interest is 'to be decided by the Court'. However, in the absence of any request for interest at a particular amount or rate, or any evidenced contractual basis for applying interest, the original default judgment did not reference interest. Subsequently, the Claimant has advised the Court of its claim for interest, and that amount has been added to the reissued default judgment.
8. In relation to costs,
rule 13.11 of the RDC provides that the Claimant is awarded costs. This is the right of the Claimant and does not need to be specified in the default judgment. However, the Claimant has advised the Court of the amount of costs sought and, as such, they form part of the reissued default judgment
Amna Al Owais
Deputy Registrar
Date of Issue: 25 June 2009
At 04:00 pm
