Judgment · Small Claims Tribunal
Mintil v Mester [2023] DIFC SCT 029
A reference record of SCT 029/2023, drawn from the decision's own text. It sets out who the parties were, who decided it, what the decision did and where to read it. It does not summarise the court's reasoning or offer advice on it.
Where cases like this arise in our work: DIFC Courts Litigation
At a glance
| Claim number | SCT 029/2023 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Small Claims Tribunal |
| Decision | Judgment |
| Before | Sct Judge Maitha Alshehhi |
| Date | 16 February 2023 |
| Date of issue | 16 February 2023 |
| Operative orders | 4 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 83 |
| Recitals | 4 |
Parties to SCT 029/2023
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Mintil | Claimant |
| Mester | Defendant |
Sums named in the judgment
These figures appear in the text of the decision. They are reproduced as amounts only — what each relates to is set out in the judgment itself.
- AED 6,923
- AED 367.25
- AED 7,500
- AED 25,000
- AED 76,350
- USD 4,000
Authorities cited in SCT 029/2023
The decision refers to the following. They are listed as cited — what each was relied on for is set out in the decision itself.
Legislation and practice directions
- DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019 DIFC law
- Data Protection Law DIFC law
- Employment Law DIFC law
Rules of the DIFC Courts applied
RDC 4.12 — see the RDC.
Other decisions citing the same authority
Records of other DIFC Courts decisions that cite at least one of the same instruments. Shared authority is not shared reasoning — each decision turns on its own facts.
- SCT 439/2022 — Mirti v Molip [2022] DIFC SCT 439 also cites DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019
- SCT 406/2022 — Liv v Lava Ltd [2022] DIFC SCT 406 also cites DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019
- SCT 383/2022 — Luftin v Lahire [2022] SCT 383 also cites DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019
- SCT 379/2022 — Lehani v Lufit [2022] DIFC SCT 379 also cites DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019
- SCT 337/2022 — Lufath v Lict [2022] DIFC SCT 337 also cites DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019
- CA 002/2022 — Expresso Telecom Group Ltd v Tarig H.A.G Rahamtalla [2022] DIFC CA 0 also cites DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019
Primary source
Everything on this page comes from the decision itself. The link goes to the court that issued it.
Acting on a small claims tribunal matter
This page is a record, not advice. If a matter of your own turns on the kind of question SCT 029/2023 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.