Welcome to the DIFC Courts website. To optimise the experience, this website only uses strictly necessary cookies.
The DIFC Courts takes your privacy very seriously and respects the importance of security on the internet. DIFC Courts websites use cookies and similar technologies for various purposes including to distinguish you from other users of our websites. By continuing to use our websites, you agree to our cookie policy.
What cookies do we use?
Cookies are text files containing small amounts of information. They are downloaded to your computer or device when you visit a website. They don’t tell us who you are but they do enable us to recognise your device and where you have made various preferences or actions they enable us to remember them.
Why do we use cookies?
Cookies do lots of different jobs, like letting you navigate between web pages efficiently, remembering your preferences, and generally improving your experience of our websites. The cookies can help to ensure that adverts you see online are more relevant to you and your interests.
Disabling cookies
DIFC Courts websites are designed to function optimally with cookies enabled. You can, however, disable cookies via your website browser settings. This may mean, however, that you may no longer have access to some of our website features. Please note that even with all cookies disabled, a tiny amount of information will continue to be retrieved from your web browser. This information is necessary for the basic functioning of our website.
Changes to our cookie policy
We may change this cookie policy from time to time. If we make changes, we will notify you by revising the date on this policy and in some cases by adding notices on our homepage or other websites or sending you email updates (where data protection laws allow this).
Contact us
If you have any questions about our cookie policy you can contact us at: ithelpdesk@difccourts.ae
CFI 023/2015 Wissam Rifai Sarraj v Nay Lebanese Restaurant and Lounge
November 07, 2016 court of first instance - Orders,Orders
UPON reviewing the Claimant’s Application Notice CFI 023-2015/1 dated 15 November 2015 seeking a court order to reopen the appeal decision of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 2 September 2015 (“the Application”);
AND UPON reading the relevant material in the case file;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Claimant’s application to reopen the appeal decision of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani dated 2 September 2015 is denied.
There be no order as to costs.
Reasons
The Claimant filed a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal of the DIFC Courts for his employment entitlements on 4 May 2015. On 22 June 2015 the Registry issued a Judgment by H.E. Shamlan Al Sawalehi amended on 1 July 2015, in which the Claimant was awarded AED 7,692.
On 16 July 2015, the Claimant filed an appeal in the Court of First Instance. On 2 September 2015, a decision by H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani was issued dismissing the appeal filed by the Claimant.
On 15 November 2015, the Claimant filed an application to reopen the decision of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani pursuant to Rule 44.179 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) on the grounds that: i) it is necessary to do so to avoid real injustice; ii) the circumstances are exceptional; iii) there is no alternative remedy.
The Claimant’s arguments and requests were similar to the arguments and requests made before the Small Claim Tribunal and the Court of First Instance (the appeal court at this stage). The Claimant failed to provide any new grounds or evidence to support the Application to reopen the decision of Ali Al Madhani dated 2 September 2015.
The Claimant’s arguments were previously argued and rejected in the Small Claims Tribunal and the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 19(5) of the DIFC Courts Law No. 10 of 2004 which states that, “unless DIFC Law specifically provides to the contrary, no appeal shall lie from a decision of the Court of First Instance in relation to an appeal from a tribunal”. Accordingly, Article 1 of Rule 44.179 of the RDC cannot be applied in this case.
Furthermore, Article 2 of Rule 44.179 of the RDC cannot be applied as the Claimant failed to provide any new documents or evidence in relation to the application and all the evidence provided was previously argued and rejected in the SCT and CFI.
In addition, the Claimant failed to prove that there is no alternative remedy as per Article 3 of Rule 44.179 of the RDC in order to request to reopen the appeal order.
For the reasons mentioned above, I am satisfied that the arguments raised by the Claimant were already dealt with at the SCT and CFI Courts and that the Defendant failed to establish new grounds or evidence to reopen the appeal. Therefore, I have refused the Claimant’s Application to reopen the appeal decision of H.E. Justice Ali Al Madhani.