December 22, 2022 SCT - Judgments and Orders
Claim No. SCT 441/2022
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL OF DIFC COURTS
BETWEEN
LIET
Claimant
and
LEAT
Defendant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF SCT JUDGE AND REGISTRAR AYESHA BIN KALBAN
UPON this Claim having been called for a Consultation before SCT Judge Ayesha Bin Kalban on 22 December 2022, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative attending the Hearing
AND UPON reading the submissions and evidence filed and recorded on the Court file
AND UPON reviewing Rule 53.41 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (the “RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Claim SCT-441-2022 be transferred to the DIFC Court of First Instance in accordance with RDC 53.41.
2. Each party shall bear their own costs of the proceedings before the Small Claims Tribunal.
Issued by:
Ayesha Bin Kalban
SCT Judge and Registrar
Date of Issue: 22 December 2022
At: 1pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
1. The Claimant’s claim in this matter is for compensation for alleged discrimnation, harrasment and victimisation at the hands of her former employer, the Defendant. The Claimant also seeks a declaration and a letter of apology, damages arising out of work-related personal injury as well as payment of alleged unlawful deductions made by the Defendant to her employment entitlements in addition to medical expenses for ongoing treatment. The Claimant’s claims in their entirety in the the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim filed by the Claimant on 8 December 2022, however the Claimant has not quantified her claim to set out the amounts she is seeking from the Defendant in the form of compensation. She brings this claim under Part 9 of the DIFC Employment Law, No. 2 of 2019 (the “Law”) .
2. The Defendant refutes the Claimant’s claims, as set out in its Defence dated 14 December 2022.
3. Part 9 of the Law makes reference to proceedings that can be brought against an employer in the event that the employee has suffered, at the hands of its employer, discrimination and victimisation. Article 61 reads as follows:
“61. Proceedings under Part 9
(1) In any proceedings before the Court under this Part 9:
(a) the burden of proof shall be on the complainant; and
(b) the respondent shall be treated as a party and is accordingly entitled to appear and be heard.”
4. The Law, in Article 3 of Schedule 1 to the Law, defines the term ‘Court’ as follows:
“Any relevant court or tribunal established in the DIFC or, in relation to any proceedings under Part 9 of this Law, the DIFC Court of First Instance.” [emphasis added]
5. The Law has clearly defined the competent court that would have jurisdiction in dealing with claims brought under Part 9 of the DIFC Employment Law to be the DIFC Court of First Instance. In addition to this and having regard to the nature of the dispute and the amount of oral evidence which may be required, I have determined that this Claim be transferred to the Court of First Instance for determination. In order for the Claimant to meet the criteria set out in Law to prove she had been subjected to discrimination and victimisation, she would require witnesses to appear before Court and would also need to provide evidence to satisfy the high level of proof required to prove claims of such a nature.
6. The Defendant would, presumably, need to cross-examine such witnesses as well as put forward evidence to contradict that demonstrated by the Claimant, and I am of the view that such an amount of evidence would require a trial held during the course of proceedings held by the Court of First Instance.
7. Therefore, in accordance with RDC 53.41 and the Law, it is hereby ordered that this claim be transferred to the Court of First Instance for determination.
