October 12, 2015 Judgments,SCT - Judgments and Orders
Claim No: SCT 165/2015
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
Between
FLOSSIE
v
FLEETWOOD
Hearing: 30 September 2015
Judgment: 30 September 2015
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI
UPON hearing the Claimant and the Defendant;
AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The Claimant’s Claim is rejected
The reasons:
1.The Claimant is a tenant of Fleetwood (“the Unit”), owned by Flossie
2. The Defendant is the Fleetwood
3. The Claimant asked the Defendant to return all amounts that had been charged as penalties for alleged breaches during his occupancy of the Unit, which had been invoiced to and paid by the Landlord and then paid back by the Claimant.
4. The Defendant had refused to pay, which had led the Claimant to file this case before the Court.
5. No settlement was reached by the parties at the end of the consultation and, consequently, the case was sent for adjudication. On 30 September 2015 I heard both parties’ submissions.
6. In the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim, the Claimant argued that he had received a penalty from the Defendant for parking his car, a long time after he had requested one extra car park space, but no reply had been made by the Defendant. Further he argued that he had received another penalty for hanging clothing outside his Unit in the Common Property area for one time only and he had been promised that the penalty would be lifted, but it has not been removed. Finally he argued that he had an additional penalty for having a dog on the Unit, but without him having been sent any information or notice in advance stating that all these incidents are prohibited.
7. In its defence, the Defendant argued that each Unit owner is responsible for procuring the compliance by its Occupiers with the by-laws which had in fact been issued to both the Unit Owner xxxx and the Unit tenant,Flossie. The Defendant argued further that breach notices with attached photos had been sent to the Claimant and the Unit Landlord concerning the contravention of the By-Laws for leaving clothes hanging at the Podium floor courtyard area of XXXX on 16 November 2013, for parking vehicle XXXX in parking space XXXX belonging to another unit since 04 June 2015, and for the fouling of the podium floor by an unregistered dog belonging to the Claimant on 10 June 2015.
8. I have examined all submissions filed in this case, and I have reviewed the following xxxx: No.2 on the use of XXXX and No.11 on prohibition on causing nuisance.
9. I have found that all the penalties for breach of the above By-Laws were caused by legitimate incidents and I am satisfied with the evidence submitted by the Defendant to support these breaches and related notices, and in my view all penalties imposed on the Owner of xxxx and then paid back by the Claimant as a result of his actions were reasonable and in accordance with the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting for Limestone House Residential Corp dated 7 August 2012 , extract p.20 of the DIFC registered Strata Management Statement of the Defendant XXXX, and Article 66 of the DIFC Strata Title Law.
10. For the above-cited reasons, I have rejected all the Claimant’s claims.
Issued by:
Nassir Al Nasser
Judicial Officer
Date: 1 October 2015
At: 4pm
