August 12, 2024 SCT - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Claim No: SCT 141/2024
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
BETWEEN
NORMA
Claimant
and
NUNZIO
Defendant
| Hearing : | 5 August 2024 |
|---|---|
| Judgment : | 12 August 2024 |
JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE NASSIR AL NASSER
UPON the Claimant filing the Claim Form dated 1 April 2024 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON a Hearing having been held before H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser on 5 August 2024, with the Claimant and 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 Claimant’s Claim shall be dismissed.
2. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 12 August 2024
At: 12pm
THE REASONS
Parties
1. The Claimant is Norma (the “Claimant”), a company registered and located in the UAE.
2. The Defendant is Nunzio (the “Defendant”), a company located and registered in Dubai, UAE.
Background and Procedural History
3. The underlying dispute arises in relation to a venue promotion service level Agreement dated 27 February 2024 (the “Agreement”) between the Claimant and the Defendant.
4. On 1 April 2024, the Claimant filed a claim against the Defendant in the Small Claims Tribunal for monetary damage in the sum of AED 26,527 to compensate for financial loss, additional expenses incurred and lost opportunities resulting from breach of contract.
5. On 16 May 2024, a consultation was held before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo, which the Defendant failed to attend, and a Default order was issued (the “Default Order”).
6. On 23 May 2024, the Defendant filed an Appeal Notice seeking to set aside the Default Order.
7. On 5 June 2024, SCT Judge Delvin Sumo granted the Defendant’s Appeal Notice and the Default Order was set aside.
8. On 7 June 2024, the Defendant filed its defence.
9. The parties met for a Consultation on 26 June 2024 before SCT Judge Delvin Sumo but were unable to reach a settlement.
10. In line with the rules and procedures of the SCT, this matter was referred to me for determination, pursuant to a Hearing held on 5 August 2024, at which the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative were in attendance.
The Claim
11. The Claimant submits that in accordance with the Agreement, the Defendant shall pay the Claimant commission for promoting services. However, the Claimant submits that the Defendant has failed to pay and there are discrepancies in the sums received.
12. Article 4 of the Agreement provides that:
“It is agreed that the Second Party (the “Claimant”) shall be entitled to receive a remuneration based on commission payout basis the gross sale after deduction of 30% (which is the total all-inclusive deductible for ie. Food costs, taxes, card & bank fees ETC…)
The schedule of commission payout is a percentage (%) of the gross sales after deductions, should the second party reach the pre-agreed revenue thresholds below:
15% of gross sales of AED 0 to 10,000.
20% of gross sales of AED 10,001 to AED 20,000
30% of gross sales of AED 20,001 & above.”
13. The Claimant submits that the Defendant never provided a system generated original report of the gross sales to calculate the commission as per the Agreement. In addition, the Claimant adds that the Defendant has not paid the DJ fees for 3 nights and lost wages in the sum of AED 1,820 for 6 nights and 18,609 x 20% (which are the sales discrepancies).
14. The Defendant submits that an incident occurred on 16 March 2024, in which on the following day the Defendant submits that the Agreement has been terminated via email.
15. The Defendant submits that the Claimant has received all their dues either in cash or via bank transfer and submitted a screen shot of the system in relation to the gross sale of the following dates:
(a) 29 February 2024;
(b) 6 March 2024;
(c) 7 March 2024;
(d) 13 March 2024;
(e) 14 March 2024; and
(f) 17 March 2024.
16. The Defendant also submitted bank transfer and cash payment vouchers as below:
(a) Bank Transfer of AED 1,694.84;
(b) Cash payment voucher in the sum of AED 1,700;
(c) Bank Transfer in the sum of AED 2,953.40; and
(d) Bank Transfer in the sum of AED 1,927.24.
17. The Defendant submits that in relation to the dates 13 and 17 March 2024, there was no commission due to the sales were less than the agreed AED 10,000 threshold.
Findings
18. For the avoidance of doubt, I shall recalculate the gross sale presented by the Defendant for each of the days claimed and as provided in paragraph 12 of this Judgment:
(a) On 29 February 2024, the total gross sale after deducting 30% is 14,766.5 therefore the Claimant’s commission shall calculate to AED 2,953.3;
(b) On 6 March 2024, the total gross sale after deducting 30% is 4202.80 therefore the Claimant’s commission shall calculate to AED 630.42;
(c) On 7 March 2024, the total gross sale after deducting 30% is 9,636.20 therefore the Claimant’s commission shall calculate to AED 1,445.43;
(d) On 13 March 2024, the total gross sale after deducting 30% is AED 6,026.3 therefore the Claimant’s commission shall calculate to AED 903.94;
(e) On 14 March 2024, the total gross sale after deducting 30% is 8,518.30 therefore the Claimant’s commission shall calculate to AED 1,277.74; and
(f) On 17 March 2024, the total gross sale after deducting 30% is AED 6,162.10 therefore the Claimant’s commission shall calculate to AED 924.
19. Therefore, the Claimant should have received the total sum of AED 8,134.83 in commission, but the Claimant received the sum of AED 8,275.47. thus, I find that there are no discrepancies in the calculations made by the Defendant.
20. The Claimant also claimed unpaid DJ fees for 3 nights, however, the Claimant failed to provide any evidence for this.
21. The Claimant also claimed lost wages of AED 10,920 for 6 nights but failed to provide any evidence.
22. Therefore, I find that the Claimant’s claim shall be dismissed.
