October 17, 2023 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No: SCT 302/2023
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
BETWEEN
MIDIN
Claimant
and
MIPUL
Defendant
| Hearing : | 9 October 2023 |
|---|---|
| Judgment : | 17 October 2023 |
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON a Hearing having been listed before H.E Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 9 October 2023, with the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives in attendance
AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 37,800.
2. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court filing fees in the sum of AED 1,891.30.
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 17 October 2023
At: 8am
THE REASONS
Parties
1. The Claimant is Midin (the “Claimant”), a company registered in Delaware, USA.
2. The Defendant is Mipul (the “Defendant”), a company registered in Dubai, UAE.
Background and Procedural History
3. The underlying dispute is in regards to an unpaid invoice arising from an Agreement dated 27 May 2021 (the “Agreement”).
4. On 16 August 2023, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Courts’ Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) seeking payment from the Defendant for an alleged unpaid invoice arising from the Agreement in the amount of AED 37,800.
5. On 29 August 2023, the Defendant filed an Acknowledgment of Service with the intention to defend the whole claim.
6. The parties met for a Consultation before SCT Judge Shahla Al Ghareeb on 4 September 2023 but were unable to reach a settlement.
7. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 9 October 2023, at which the Claimant’s and the Defendant’s representatives were in attendance.
Claim
8. The Claimant submits that on 27 May 2021, the parties entered into an Agreement, pursuant to which, the Defendant requested the Claimant’s assistance for the recruitment of a “Compliance Officer and MRLO”.
9. The Claimant submits that on 18 April 2023, the Defendant was presented with a selection of candidates. The Defendant chose Miner for interviews and after subsequent evaluation, Miner was offered the position on 23 May 2023. The Claimant adds that Miner accepted the offer on the same day and the Claimant invoiced the Defendant on 24 May 2023.
10. The Claimant submits that Miner joined the Defendant on 29 May 2023. Despite numerous reminders and follow-ups, the invoice with a due date of 7 June 2023 remained unpaid. Subsequently, the Claimant submits that it followed up with the Defendant on numerous occasions but the invoice remained unsettled.
11. Therefore, the Claimant filed a claim with the DIFC Small Claims Tribunal claiming the unpaid invoice in the sum of AED 37,800.
Defence
12. The Defendant submits that the candidate, Miner, violated the offer letter and had no intention of accepting a full-time employment offer. Furthermore, the Defendant submits that the Claimant was fully aware of the candidate’s violation of the offer, and the Claimant failed to inform the Defendant about these intentions and continued the process in order to secure the payment from the Defendant.
13. The Defendant submits that the failure to disclose such issues earlier in the process has caused damage to the Defendant and required the Defendant to hire a third-party consultant as a replacement for the candidate.
14. The Defendant submits that the candidate’s acceptance of the offer is not valid, as the placement of the candidate was not completed as per the Agreement.
15. The Defendant submits that the Claimant failed to perform its duty as per the Agreement. The Defendant adds that the candidate refused to sign a full time employment contract and did not join the Defendant as a full time employee.
16. Therefore, the Defendant submits that the DIFC Courts should dismiss the Claimant’s claim.
Finding
17. Clause 4 of the Agreement provides the following:
“Invoices are due strictly 14 days after the candidate has accepted the Job Offer. Should invoices to the client become overdue then clause 7 (replacement) becomes void unequivocally.”
18. The candidate accepted the Job Offer on 23 May 2023, by way of an email, wherein she signed and sent to the Defendant the Offer Letter. Therefore, pursuant to clause 4 of the Agreement, the invoice fell due 14 days after the candidate accepted the Job Offer.
19. The Claimant fulfilled its obligation pursuant to the Agreement by providing the Defendant with candidates to fulfil the position. Subsequently, the Defendant hired the candidate (as confirmed by the emails dated 23 and 24 May 2023 between the Defendant and the candidate). However, the Defendant failed to fulfil its obligations under the Agreement and settle the invoice pursuant to clause 4 of the Agreement.
20. The Defendant argues that the Claimant knew of the candidate’s intention but failed to provide any evidence of such an allegation.
21. Clause 3.2 of the Agreement provides the following:
“Mrumbrecruitment accepts no responsibility for the qualifications or ability of candidates placed. It is up to the client to have a robust interview process to on-board the correct candidate and the client accepts full responsibility for candidates chosen and hired”.
22. In addition to the above, I find that the Claimant has an obligation under the Agreement to replace a candidate who’s employment ends within 60 days of commencement subject to the Defendant paying the invoice in accordance with clause 4 of the Agreement.
23. On 13 June 2023, the Defendant contacted the Claimant to replace the candidate (i.e. around 6 days after the invoice was due pursuant to clause 4 of the Agreement).
24. In light of my findings above, I find that the Defendant is liable to pay the invoice pursuant to clause 4 of the Agreement.
Conclusion
25. In light of the aforementioned, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant the sum of AED 37,800.
26. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant the Court filing fees in the sum of AED 1,891.30.
