Judgment or Order · Small Claims Tribunal
Murkan v Mishti [2023] DIFC SCT 089
A reference record of SCT 089/2023, 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 089/2023 |
| Court | DIFC Courts — Small Claims Tribunal |
| Decision | Judgment or Order |
| Date | 3 July 2023 |
| Date of issue | 3 July 2023 |
| Operative orders | 6 |
| Numbered paragraphs | 75 |
| Recitals | 3 |
Parties to SCT 089/2023
As the decision names them, with the role each appears in.
| Party | Role |
|---|---|
| Murkan | Claimant/Respondent |
| Mishti | Defendant/Appellant |
Decisions in SCT 089/2023
The DIFC Courts have published 3 decisions under this claim number. The dates and types below are the court's own record of the sequence.
| Date | Type |
|---|---|
| 3 May 2023 | Judgment or Order |
| 3 May 2023 | Judgment or Order |
| 3 July 2023 | Judgment or Order |
Sums named in the judgment or order
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 500
- AED 1,984.54
- AED 1,587.79
- AED 12,000
- AED 1,915.38
- AED 115.38
Authorities cited in SCT 089/2023
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. 10 of 2004 DIFC law
- DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019 DIFC law
- DIFC Law No. 4 of 2021 DIFC law
- Employment Law DIFC law
Rules of the DIFC Courts applied
RDC 44.118, RDC 44.143, RDC 53.2, RDC 53.51, RDC 53.53, RDC 53.54, RDC 53.55, RDC 53.58, RDC 53.84, RDC 53.87, RDC 53.89, RDC 53.91, RDC 53.94, RDC 53.101, RDC 53.104, RDC 53.107, RDC 53.116 — 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.
- CA 014/2022 — Gulf Wings FZE v A And K Trading Limited and (1) Mr Kamel Abou Aly ( also cites DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004
- CFI 055/2022 — Lombard North Central PLC v R D K International LLC [2022] DIFC CFI also cites DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004
- CFI 008/2022 — Kpmg Llp V The Dubai Financial Services Authority And Milind Ajit Na also cites DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004
- CFI 047/2019 — CFI 047/2019 Caterpillar Financial Services (Dubai) Limited v (1) Om also cites DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004
- CFI 060/2021 — CFI 060/2021 Lumbini v Lotika also cites DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004
- CFI 032/2020 — CFI 032/2020 Kaamil v (1) Kaawa (2) Kaabii (3) Kadija (4) Kaemon (5) also cites DIFC Law No. 10 of 2004
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 089/2023 dealt with, speak to us about the facts.