Privacy Settings

Claim No: SCT 094/2023

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
BEFORE H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI

BETWEEN

MUFTAN

Claimant

and

MEKHER

Defendant

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE MAHA AL MHEIRI

UPON this claim having been filed on 27 February 2023 (the “Claim”)

AND UPON the hearing held before H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri on 29 March 2023 with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance (the “Hearing”)

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file

AND UPON reviewing the documents and evidence filed and recorded in SCT-003-2023 and SCT-060-2023

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Claim shall be dismissed.

2. Each party shall bear their own costs.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 3 April 2023
At: 11am

THE REASONS

The Parties

1. The Claimant is Muftan (the “Claimant”), a former employee of Mekher .

2. The Defendant is Mekher (the “Defendant”), a company registered in Dubai, the UAE.

Background

3. The underlying dispute arises out of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant pursuant to an employment contract dated 14 January 2022, the Claimant was employed in the position of Corporate Head Chef.

4. The Defendant was in the process of opening a new restaurant in Milif. The Defendant was short on staff to support with the new restaurant and was also facing cash flow difficulties. The Claimant suggested to the Defendant to hire outside staff to support with the project until the opening of the restaurant, and the Claimant would cover half of the staff’s salary up until the new restaurant is open, at which point in time the Defendant would have enough cash flow to reimburse the Claimant.

5. The Claimant was informed verbally by the Defendant in May 2022 that it will no longer take any outside staff starting from June 2022. On 9 June 2022, the Defendant was informed by the other staff in the kitchen that the three outside staff were still working.

6. On 9 June 2022, an email was sent to the Claimant stating that no outside staff should work in the kitchen starting from June 2022, the email reads as follows:

7. The Claimant continued paying salaries for the outside labour on behalf of the Defendant for the remainder of June and the months of July and August. After which, the Defendant terminated the Claimant’s employment.

8. The Claimant filed two claims in relation to his employment with the Defendant prior to this claim (the “Present Claim”). First, the Claimant filed claim number SCT-003-2023 dated 3 January 2023 (the “Original Claim”). A Consent Order dated 18 January 2023 was issued, settling the case (the “Consent Order”).

9. It is imperative to note that the Consent Order stated that the terms contained therein are “completed as full and final settlement of this Claim.”

10. Second, the Claimant filed claim number SCT-060-2023 dated 6 February 2023 seeking to collect an additional end of service entitlement, which pertained to 15% commission fee, despite having settled with the Defendant in the Original Claim (the “Second Claim”). However, the Second Claim was dismissed.

11. The Defendant rejects the Claimant’s entitlement to further benefits since the Claimant received his full and final settlement by virtue of the Consent Order.

12. The issue that is in dispute is whether the Claimant is entitled to receive the reimbursement of the payment on the premise that the Consent Order had already dealt with the Claimant’s final settlement.

13. With regards to the Present Claim which also deals with the employment of the Claimant, it touches upon a fundamental legal doctrine/principle known as Res judicata.

Res judicata

14. Res judicata states that if a claim has been decided by the Court i.e. an order/judgment issued, then no further action can be pursued in respect of that claim.

15. The Defendant’s representative argued in his oral submissions at the Hearing that the Claimant cannot initiate such a claim at this stage since the Claimant received his full and final settlement by way of the Consent Order, and any claim for additional benefit ought to have been raised and dealt with in the Original Claim.

16. By establishing the presence of such a legal principle, the Court must now determine whether it applies to the Present Claim.

17. The Amount awarded in favour of the Claimant in the Consent Order is in relation to payment of his salary, allowances, notice period, invoices paid by the Claimant and leave, which were within the Claimant’s right in accordance with his employment.

Is the Claimant eligible for additional claims following the Consent Order?

18. At the Hearing, the Claimant submitted that he was reluctant to put all claims forward in the original claim to the Defendant as he did not wish the Defendant to use this as an excuse for refusing or prolonging the process of payment to the Claimant. Thus, the Claimant decided to split his claims to ensure that he will be paid all that he is owed under the Offer Letter.

19. As discussed above, the Defendant is of the view that the Claimant ought to have included such a request beforehand and is not entitled to it now.

20. Taking into consideration the Consent Order, the wording of the Consent Order wherein it asserts that it constitutes the full and final settlement of the Original Claim. Any further claims were waived by the Claimant due to the agreement entered with the Defendant in the Original Claim and issuance of the Consent Order.

21. In other words, the Court is unable to pass any judgment in relation to a matter that has already been decided.

Findings

22. The Present Claim cannot be decided on the basis that it has already been determined and an order was issued to that effect. Therefore, the notion of res judicata is applicable and no further action can be taken by either party in respect of the Claimant’s end of service entitlement.

23. In light of the aforementioned, the Present Claim shall be dismissed.

24. Each party shall bear their own costs.