May 07, 2026 Court of First Instance - Orders
Claim No: CFI 008/2026
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
PAIGE
Claimant/Appellant
and
PRESLEY
Defendant/Respondent
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART
UPON a Claim having been filed in the Small Claims Tribunal (the “SCT”) under case reference SCT-344-2025, on 16 May 2025 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON the Defendant filing a defence with counterclaim in those proceedings on 2 June 2025
AND UPON the Judgment of H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri dated 15 October 2025 giving judgment for the Defendant in the sum of USD 90,000 and requiring the Claimant to pay the Defendant the Court filing fee of USD 1,800 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Claimant’s Appeal Notice dated 29 October 2025 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment
AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E Justice Roger Stewart dated 29 December 2025, granting limited permission to appeal (the “Limited Permission”)
AND UPON Claim No. CFI-008-2026 being opened in the Court of First Instance on 3 February 2026 to determine the Limited Permission
AND UPON considering the skeleton arguments of the Defendant dated 23 April 2026 and that of the Claimant dated 27 April 2026
AND UPON hearing the Claimant and counsel for the Defendant at a hearing held before H.E. Justice Roger Stewart on 30 April 2026
AND UPON considering the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECLARED THAT:
1. The Judgment is set aside.
2. The Defendant is not entitled to repayment of either the advance of USD 30,000 or any sums overpaid in respect of the first six months salary.
3. The Defendant shall pay the Claimant USD 10,667.67 within 14 days of this Order in respect of salary which should have been paid up until the end of her employment.
4. The Defendant shall pay to the Claimant any and all court fees paid by the Claimant in respect of this Claim and the proceedings in the SCT including any sums which have been paid by the Claimant to the Defendant pursuant to the Judgment
Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 7 May 2026
At: 12pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an appeal from the Small Claims Tribunal in respect of Judgment in which H.E. Justice Maha Al Mheiri ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant USD 90,000 and the Court fee. Limited permission to appeal against the Judgment was given by the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart dated 29 December 2025.
2. The Claimant is Paige, an individual who was formerly employed by the Defendant as Chief Growth Officer by the Defendant, a company registered in the DIFC, pursuant to an employment contract dated 7 September 2024.
3. The Defendant carries on business as a financial services company and is regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority.
The Facts
4. The Claimant was originally based in Canada and re-located to Dubai with her two children in order to take up the job with the Defendant. The job of Chief Growth Officer was described as encompassing being responsible for overseeing growth through providing “macroeconomic insights, market analysis and strategy recommendations to the investment team, enhancing brand presence and leading client acquisition efforts”.
5. It is plain that both parties had high hopes and expectations in respect of the Claimant’s employment. Discussions as to her employment took place between herself and Mr Patrick, the SEO of Presley. The Defendant suggests that it was the Claimant who herself suggested the terms upon which she should be engaged at a meeting which took place on 15 August 2024 as reflected in an email of 26 August 2024 which stated
“In continuation of our several E meets / in person meetings in Dubai before the recent visit and your proposal of the below variable payout, we are happy to work on the official contract with detailed Job responsibilities for acceptance by both parties.
Following our multiple ongoing discussions and your continued interest in joining Presley, I am pleased to confirm that we have, in principle, accepted your candidacy at our firm.
Your proposal as discussed to pay out a fixed monthly amount of USD 20,000 for 6 months and an advance of USD 30,000 once you have joined Presley, with a contract period of 2 years, and that once you commence contributing to revenues 50% of the fixed payout of 6 months and the advance amount paid for meeting initial family expenses of USD 30,000 to be adjusted from 35% of all the net revenues received by the company that is generated by your efforts…” [sic]
6. As anticipated by the email, formal terms were then sent out by the Defendant. Thus the material terms of the Claimant’s employment contract were set out in an offer letter from the Defendant dated 7 September 2024 which was countersigned by the Claimant. The contract:
(a) Started by identifying that the Claimant was to be an employee with the position of Chief Growth Officer:
“responsible for overseeing growth through providing macroeconomic insights, market analysis, and strategy recommendations to the investment team, enhancing brand presence, and leading client acquisition efforts. It integrates investment strategy with business growth, brand development, and client expansion initiatives.”
(b) Contained a table which inter alia:
(i) Identified the Claimant’s supervisor as the SEO and parallel reporting to founder and Chairman of Investments Mr Phil;
(ii) Stated the commencement date would be 15 September 2024;
(iii) Provided for provision of an employment visa and stated “You are required to be in service to the Company for at least 2 years, subject to Management Discretion”:
(iv) Provided for medical insurance to be provided by the Respondent for the Claimant, “Spouse & Kids (2 Kids)”;
(v) Identified the work schedule as being Monday to Friday from 9am to 6pm;
(vi) Stated that the probation period should be 6 months from the Commencement Date; and
(vii) Identified annual leave of 30 Calendar days or 22 work days;
(c) By clause 2 that the Claimant’s employment should commence on 15 September 2024 and should, subject to clause 3, continue until termination in accordance with clause 12;
(d) By clause 3 that the Claimant should work under probation for a period of 6 months during which period either party could terminate the employment by giving 15 days’ notice;
(e) By clause 12:
(i) that Subject to clause 3.1, either party could terminate the contract by giving notice in writing of 15 days;
(ii) That if, by reason of misconduct, misbehaviour, submission of incorrect documentation under clause 4.4(c) or lack of integrity the Employee does not perform his/her basic duties under this Contract and persists in breaching them despite having been warned that he/she will be dismissed if such behaviour continues, the Employee may be liable to immediate dismissal by the Employer, without any further notice, in accordance with the provisions of the Article 62, 63 of Employment Law (sic);
(f) By clause 4 that the Claimant was subject to extensive obligations and restrictions;
(g) By clause 5 entitled “REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS”
(i) Variable Payout
a. a. 35 % of all net revenues received by the company are generated by the employee’s efforts. Once the employee commences contributing to revenue, 50% of the fixed salary will be adjusted accordingly including arrears – such that the total compensation (50% of the Fixed Salary + Variable Incentives) at any point in time does not exceed 35% of the total revenue generated by the employee. The net variable Incentives, calculated as above, will be paid every year annually in arrears, in most cases.
b. A fixed monthly amount of USD 20,000 will be paid for 6 months and an advance of USD 30,000 once you have joined Presley, with a contract period of 2 years, and once you commence contributing to revenues 50% of the fixed payout of 6 months and the advance amount paid for meeting initial family expenses of USD 30,000 to be adjusted from 35% of all the net revenues received by the company that is generated by your efforts.
(h) By clause 5.2 the Employer will obtain and maintain health insurance cover for the employee, spouse & kids.
(i) By Clause 5.3 that upon the termination of the Employment, the Employee may be entitled to an end of service gratuity, calculated and paid in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Law, DIFC Law No. 2 of 2019, as amended from time to time (the “Employment”). For the avoidance of doubt, the end of service gratuity shall be calculated with reference to Basic Wage only.
7. The Claimant duly received an initial advance of USD 30,000 which was used to finance moving costs and a salary of USD 20,000 per month for six months.
8. It is apparent that the relationship did not develop as either party hoped. The material history included:
(a) On 4 December 2024, the Claimant sent a lengthy email to Mr Patrick, copied to Mr Phil, seeking a large amount of information so as to enable her to assist the Defendant. The Claimant maintains that she never received clear and transparent answers to enable her to perform her job;
(b) Mr Patrick replied in a brief email of 13 December 2024 offering to have a meeting with her;
(c) A meeting took place on 28 February 2025 between Mr Patrick and the Claimant as recorded in an email of 18 March 2025 which asked for further insight from the Claimant but did not record any complaints;
(d) There were meetings on 14 and 31 March 2025 at which discussions took place about the Claimant’s future employment with a base salary of USD 10,000 per month as referred to in the Claimant’s email of 4 April 2025;
(e) On 7 April 2025, Mr Patrick sent an email to the Claimant in which he asserted
“As per the agreed terms, your compensation was structured with a fixed salary for the initial six months, transitioning thereafter to a performance- based model entitling you to 35% of the revenue generated through your efforts…
While we appreciate your enthusiasm and commitment to your position, the expected outcomes in client acquisition and revenue generation have unfortunately not materialised. Given this, we wish to reaffirm that your engagement remains under the original agreement dated 7th September 2024 – wherein remuneration beyond the initial fixed term salary for six months, which has already been paid, any further remuneration shall be payable to your, and your entitlement shall remain strictly to the 35% share of revenue derived from your contributions after deducting the 50% of your salary already disbursed to you in initial six months and USD 30,000 initial advance amount paid to meet family expenses as agreed in the contract.
Separately, we are currently in discussions with the board regarding the waiver of the advance amounting to USD 30,000 extended to you. We will keep you informed of any updates on this matter.
Should you wish to continue under the agree performance- based structure, we remain open to further discussions regarding the revenue- sharing percentages as part of our ongoing conversation, please confirm your acceptance of these terms….” [sic]
(f) On 11 April, the Defendant noted that no response had been received to the email of 7 April and asserted that the Claimant had decided not to proceed further with the result that health insurance had not been renewed. A request was made for the return of company property and it was stated that a board position about the USD 30,000 advance was awaited;
(g) On 14 April the Claimant sent what was, effectively, a holding response and asking for time to respond; and
(h) On 17 April 2025 the Defendant gave one month’s notice of termination with the Defendant’s last working day being 16 May 2025. The email:
(i) Complained that there had been no acquisition of new clients and the “level of initiative and follow-through expected in a leadership role of this nature has not been sufficiently demonstrated”;
(ii) Re-iterated that beyond the initial fixed term salary, remuneration was limited to 35% of revenue sharing net of previously disbursed salary and the USD 30,000 advance;
(iii) Said that for health insurance, the Claimant would be reimbursed “to the extent deemed essential” and
(iv) Did not otherwise complain about the Claimant’s performance or time- keeping.
9. The original Claim sought relief including:
(a) Alleged outstanding salary of USD 10,667.67 based on a monthly salary of USD 10,000 in respect of the period after the six months’ probation period when the Claimant received no monies;
(b) Compensation for unfair dismissal and notice in the amount of USD 70,000;
(c) Compensation for health insurance costs of USD 10,000; and
(d) A declaration that the USD 30,000 advance payment was an employee benefit and not a loan.
10. The Defence and Counterclaim:
(a) Alleged that the remuneration structure agreed was for a fixed monthly salary of USD 20,000 for six months and thereafter a variable performance based compensation structure of 35% of revenue with no fixed salary;
(b) Asserted that no gratuity was due given the fact that employment lasted less than 6 months;
(c) Asserted that both the AED 30,000 advance and 50% of the fixed salary of USD 120,000 were recoverable from the Claimant;
(d) Sought recovery of the above sums together with sums said to be due for parking fines;
(e) Asserted that the Claimant had been treated kindly and with compassion with personal loans being advanced to her; and
(f) Stated that the Claimant had not attended the office after the end of the probationary periods and had only entered into the contract in order to obtain six months of employment for obtaining a golden visa.
The Judgment
11. The judge found:
(a) That 50% of the fixed initial salary and the advance payment would be recovered through future commission earnings (see paragraph 23);
(b) There was no obligation to provide any fixed salary after the six month initial period (paragraph 24);
(c) There was no basis for a claim for unfair dismissal (paragraph 31);
(d) The Claimant had been employed for less than one year so no gratuity was due under the DIFC Employment Law (paragraph 34);
(e) That there was no entitlement to be paid during the notice period as no revenue had been generated (see paragraph 39);
(f) There was no proof of any expenditure on health insurance (paragraph 40); and
(g) That the Claimant did not generate any revenue post probation with the employment ending before any commissions accrued thus frustrating the mechanism of repayment with the consequence that there was a duty to repay even if the commission mechanism failed with the consequence that the Claimant was liable to repay USD 90,000 (paragraphs 45 to 47).
12. The Notice of Appeal set out four main grounds of appeal each of which contains sub- headings. The four grounds were:
(a) Ground 1 - Alleged Misapplication of DIFC Employment Law regarding post- probation remuneration;
(b) Ground 2 – Alleged Error regarding End of Service Gratuity;
(c) Ground 3 – Alleged Fundamental Error in Upholding the Counterclaim; and
(d) Ground 4 – Alleged Procedural Errors and Failure to consider relevant evidence.
13. By the Order with Reasons dated 29 December 2025, I gave limited permission to appeal so as to permit Grounds 1 and 3 to be argued and Ground 4 to the extent only of procedural unfairness insofar as records of the Defendant’s revenue were required. I refused permission in respect of Ground 2 which related to an alleged error in relation to the end of service gratuity.
14. The Appeal raises the following issues:
(a) The correct construction of the contract in relation to the Claimant’s entitlement to remuneration after the six month probationary period;CommentHighlight
(b) The correct construction of the contract as to whether the Defendant was entitled to seek recovery of 50% of the salary paid to the Claimant in the first six months and the advance of USD 30,000; and
(c) Whether the Defendant is entitled to seek to recover 50% of the salary in the first six months and the advance of USD 30,000 notwithstanding that it terminated the contract.
15. The Judge found that clause 5 of the Employment contract:
(a) Entitled the Claimant to an advance of USD 30,000 on joining the Defendant and to a fixed monthly amount of USD 20,000 for the first six months of employment;
(b) Did not provide for any payment after six months except for 35% of revenues generated by the Claimant’s efforts; and
(c) Permitted the deduction of the USD 60,000 being half of the money paid in the first six months and USD 30,000 on the basis that the Claimant had not generated any revenues even though the Defendant had dismissed the Claimant relatively soon after the probation period ended.
16. The Defendant initially suggested that the Judge was correct in the conclusion set out in paragraph 15.2(a). However in the course of argument, counsel for the Defendant said that the correct position was that there was an entitlement to USD 10,000 per month after the six month period had expired with any further entitlement dependent on revenue generated by the Claimant.
17. I consider that this concession was correctly made.
18. The remuneration provisions are very far from being a model of clarity. However, correctly construed they do provide for a minimum salary of USD 10,000 per month after the six month initial period had expired. This is because:
(a) Clause 5.1 states that “once the employee commences contributing to revenue” 50% of the “fixed salary” will be adjusted accordingly including arrears;
(b) There is no definition of “fixed salary” but there is a reference to “a fixed monthly amount of USD 20,000” in clause 5.1(b);
(c) This suggests that, after six months and going forward, half of USD 20,000 will be adjusted rather than there being no entitlement to any fixed amount;CommentHighlight
(d) This is reinforced by the fact that the end of clause 5.1(a) makes it clear that the “net variable Incentives” “will be paid every year annually in arrears, in most cases”;
(e) If there were no fixed salary at all this would mean that the Claimant would receive nothing until after 12 months even if she was generating very substantial revenue;
(f) This would appear to be very unlikely given the obvious need for cash-flow and, indeed, the provisions of the agreement concerning the initial advance and the fixed salary of USD 20,000 for the first six months;
(g) The reference to the fact that “50% of the fixed salary will be adjusted accordingly including arrears – such that the total compensation (50%) of the Fixed + Variable Incentives” at any point in time does not exceed 35% of the total revenue generated by the employee” was making referring to the USD 10,000 of the initial salary which was to be adjusted subsequently – in other words that it did not refer to the other half of the fixed salary which was payable in any event both before and after the initial six months.
19. The consequence of the above achieves a sensible commercial result namely that:
(a) There would be an overall base salary of USD 10,000 per month payable throughout employment;
(b) The Claimant would also be entitled to 35% of net revenue generated by her; and
(c) For the first six months, in addition to the USD 10,000 per month a further USD 10,000 per month would be paid and an advance of USD 30,000 but this would be subject to subsequent adjustment.
(d) The variable amount (in addition to USD 10,000 per month) will only be paid every year in arrears; and
(e) This would mean that after six months of a fixed amount, the Claimant would receive nothing even if she was entitled to substantial remuneration, until the end of the year.
20. I consider that if the question were in doubt, the provision would be construed against the Defendant:
(a) Given that this is an employment contract;
(b) That Article 14(2) (c) of the Employment Law requires an Employment contract to contain details of the Employee’s Wage; and
(c) That if the provisions were to be construed as set out by the Judge, one would expect very clear words which are not present.
21. I have been troubled as to what was the contract required in relation to the revenue generated by the Claimant. The opening words of clause 5.1 might suggest that the Claimant was entitled to 35% of all net revenue generated by the Defendant. However I am satisfied that that was not what the parties agreed. Further although I am still troubled as to how this entitlement would have been calculated:
(a) This is not a case where the Claimant is contending that she did generate net revenue; and
(b) It follows that I do not have to decide the issue.
22. The next issue is as to the time and method by which accounting should be undertaken in respect of 35% of net revenue generated by the Claimant and the 50% of salary for the first six months and the advance payment of USD 30,000.
23. As to this:
(a) I do not consider that any entitlement arose until the Claimant started contributing to revenue;
(b) I also consider that the entitlement was only to deduct the sums from generated revenue rather than to seek reimbursement from sums already paid;
(c) This is because:
(i) The second sentence of clause 5.1 starts “Once the employee commences contributing to revenue” and the last part of clause 5.1b) refers to “50% of the fixed payout of 6 months and the advance amount paid for meeting initial family expenses of USD 30,000 to be adjusted from 35% of all the net revenues received by the company generated by your efforts”; and
(ii) The net variable amounts were to be calculated annually in arrears as stated.
24. It follows that the Defendant did bear the risk that, if there was no contribution to revenue, it would have no recourse to the Claimant. However, that does not seem to me to be unreasonable or surprising in the commercial context of the above.
25. If I am wrong about that, I consider it clear that the Defendant cannot claim repayment without giving the Claimant an opportunity to contribute to net revenue for a full year.
26. The Defendant dismissed the Claimant long before a year had elapsed thus denying her any opportunity to demonstrate what her contribution to net revenue was. Further the Defendant did so in circumstances where it was asserting, contrary to its position at the hearing, that there was no entitlement to any base salary at all. A party is not entitled to rely on a right which it has, itself, prevented the other party from taking advantage of in circumstances such as the present.
27. The Defendant made a number of submissions to the effect that the consideration for this contract had wholly failed, that the Claimant had not attended work and that, in those circumstances, it was entitled to reclaim monies. As to these matters:
(a) They are not reflected in contemporaneous correspondence as set out above; and
(b) They were not the grounds for dismissal.
28. It follows that there are no grounds upon which the deductions can be permitted.
29. In the circumstances, the following relief is appropriate:
(a) The Judgment in favour of the Defendant is set aside;
(b) I shall grant a declaration that the Defendant is not entitled to repayment of either the advance of USD 30,000 or any sums in respect of the first six months salary;
(c) The Claimant is entitled to USD 10,667.67 in respect of salary which should have been paid up until the end of her employment; and
(d) The Defendant should pay to the Claimant any and all court fees paid by the Claimant in respect of this Claim and the proceedings in the SCT.
