Skip to Content

Babak v Bandi [2011] DIFC SCT 005

Babak v Bandi [2011] DIFC SCT 005

January 1, 2011

image_pdfimage_print

THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Ruler of Dubai

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

BEFORE SCT JUDGE SHAMLAN AL SAWALEHI

Between

Babak

Claimant

v

Bandi

Defendant


JUDGMENT


This claim having been called for hearing before the Small Claims Tribunal Judge Shamlan Al Sawalehi

UPON hearing the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative on January 2011 and reviewing all documents and evidence attached and submitted to this Court.

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Defendant pays the Claimant the sum of AED 100,000.00 including the Court fee with immediate effect.

Parties and Representation

1. The Claimant, Babak, representing himself, bought a residential unit that was developed by the Defendant in the Dubai International Financial Centre.
2. The Defendant, Bandi, is a company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates and was represented by XXXX.

Background and Reasons

3. The Claimant lodged a Claim Form seeking AED 100,000.00 as compensation for loss as the Defendant failed to deliver the unit by end the of 2008.

4. In support of his claim, the Claimant attached the following:

(a) A copy of the Reservation Form for a one bedroom unit, on the 39th floor signed by the Defendant on April 2007;
(b) A copy of the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 18 August 2010 amended, signed and returned to the Defendant by the Claimant;
(c) A copy of email communications with the Defendant’s Sales Representative;
(d) Copies of web pages related to the same project;
(e) Copies of receipts relating to the unit purchase;
(f) Copy of Mortgage Approval Letter from the Bank approving loan and Bank statements.
5. The Defendant denies all of this claim and has requested that the claim be dismissed for the following reasons:
(a) The Claimant failed to provide any evidence to prove that the purchased unit must be delivered by end of 2008;
(b) The Claimant has received the Taking Over Certificate and was asked by the Defendant to take the possession of the unit on December 2010.
6. The parties to this case took part in a consultation meeting but no settlement was reached.
7. A Small Claims Tribunal hearing was held on January 2011. The Claimant attended in person and the Defendant was represented by a full-time employee of the Defendant company.
8. The Claimant responded to the Defendant’s arguments by relying on the only binding document between the parties which is a Reservation Form that showed staged payment details of 65% of the purchase price having been made by June 2008 and also other representations made by the Defendant’s Sales Executives and management before and after entering into such an agreement by the media and the company web pages. He also argued that as a consequence of the two year delay on delivery of the purchased unit, he incurred losses by paying interest on the mortgage during this period and, in addition, to lost rental income opportunity.
9. The Defendant failed to prove to this Court that there was another legal binding agreement between the parties other than the Reservation Form regarding the delivery date of the purchased unit. The Defendant acknowledged during the hearing that representations made by management about the expected delivery date was to be at the end of 2008. In addition, the Defendant failed to comment on the Claimant’s damages estimation.
10. This Court examined all the documents and statements submitted by the parties and has applied the Law of Contract No.6 of 2004, Law of Damages and Remedies No.7 of 2005 and Part 53 of the Rules of DIFC Courts.
11. This Court finds that there was an agreement between the parties by signing the Reservation Form of the purchased unit which was to be delivered by end of 2008. Therefore, the Claimant is entitled to full compensation in accordance with the Small Claim Tribunal’s jurisdiction for the loss sustained as a result of the non-performance of the Defendant.

 

Shamlan Al Sawalehi
SCT Judge
Date of Issue: January 2011
At: 4pm

X

Privacy Policy

The Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates are committed to preserve the confidentiality, integrity and availability of client data and personal information.

Dispute Resolution Authority and all its affiliates employees, vendors, contract workers, shall follow Information Security Management System in all the processes and technology.

  1. DRA's Top Management is committed to secure information of all our interested parties.
  2. Information security controls the policies, processes, and measures that are implemented by DRA in order to mitigate risks to an acceptable level, and to maximize opportunities in order to achieve its information security objectives.
  3. DRA and all its affiliates shall adopt a systematic approach to risk assessment and risk treatment.
  4. DRA is committed to provide information security awareness among team members and evaluate the competency of all its employees.
  5. DRA and all its affiliates shall protect personal information held by them in all its form.
  6. DRA and all its affiliates shall comply with all regulatory, legal and contractual requirements.
  7. DRA and all its affiliates shall provide a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan encompassing the locations within the scope of the ISMS.
  8. Information shall be made available to authorised persons as and when required.
  9. DRA’s Top Management is committed towards continual improvement in information security in all our processes through regular review of our information security management system.