Claim No: CFI 023/2026

IN THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

PALMER

Respondent/Claimant

and

PHOENIX

Appellant/Defendant

JUDGMENT OF H.E. JUSTICE RENE LE MIERE

UPON the Judgment of H.E. Justice Nassir Al Nasser dated 28 January 2026 (the “Judgment”) in SCT-593-2025

AND UPON the Defendant’s Appeal Notice on 18 February 2026 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment (the “PTA Application”) filed in SCT-593-2025

AND UPON the Order with Reasons of H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere dated 11 March 2026 granting the PTA on one ground (the “Order”)

AND UPON hearing Counsel for the Respondent and the Appellant failing to appear at the hearings held before H.E. Justice Rene Le Miere on 22 May 2026 and 1 June 2026

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The payment of AED 285,000 made by the Defendant on or about 19 August 2025 shall be brought into account in determining the sums due between the parties.

2. That payment shall be treated as a credit in favour of the Defendant and applied in reduction of:

3. To the extent that the total amount of the credit referred to in paragraph 2 exceeds the total amount of overstay rent and occupation charges properly due to the Claimant upon the Defendant vacating the Unit, the Claimant shall repay the balance to the Defendant.

4. Save as provided in paragraphs 1 to 3 above, the Judgment is affirmed.

5. There shall be no order as to the general costs of the appeal.

6. The Defendant shall pay the additional costs incurred by the Claimant arising from the Defendant’s failure to appear at the appeal hearing on 22 May 2026, fixed in the amount of USD 2,000.

Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 2 July 2026
At: 11am

Introduction

1. These are the Court’s reasons for determining the appeal from the judgment of the Small Claims Tribunal dated 28 January 2026.

2. Permission to appeal was granted on a single, limited ground: whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider, or to explain its treatment of, the payment of AED 285,000 said to have been made by the Defendant on or about 19 August 2025, and whether that payment was material to the monetary relief granted.

3. All other grounds were refused. There is no appeal against the findings that the tenancy expired and that the Defendant remained in occupation thereafter without contractual entitlement.

Procedural History

4. The appeal was listed for hearing on 22 May 2026. The Respondent appeared, but the Appellant did not. The hearing was adjourned.

5. On 1 June 2026, the Respondent again appeared. The Appellant did not appear and has provided no explanation for her absence.

6. In those circumstances, the Court proceeded to determine the appeal on the material before it, including the Appellant’s Notice, the Respondent’s written submissions, and the record of proceedings below.

Background

7. The Claimant commenced proceedings seeking possession, overstay rent, and related relief. The Defendant relied, among other matters, on the payment of AED 285,000.

8. The SCT found that Defendant occupied the premises under a tenancy agreement which expired on 31 July 2025. She did not vacate the premises and remained unlawfully in occupation thereafter. Those findings must be treated as final.

9. On or about 19 August 2025, the Defendant paid to the Claimant the sum of AED 285,000.

10. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the Respondent submitted in relation to that payment:

“This payment should be treated as mesne profits, not rent. We respectfully request the court to confirm the purpose of this payment and its proper allocation.”

11. The Tribunal entered judgment for the Claimant, including an order for overstay rent in the sum of AED 140,548.32 and continuing daily occupation charges.

12. The Tribunal did not expressly address the payment of AED 285,000.

Issue on the Appeal

13. The appeal is confined to whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider, or to explain its treatment of, the payment of AED 285,000, and whether that omission was material to the monetary orders.

Findings

14. The material before the Court demonstrates that the payment of AED 285,000 was specifically raised in the proceedings. It formed part of the live controversy between the parties.

15. The payment was capable of materially affecting the financial position between the parties, including the calculation of overstay rent and the overall accounting between them.

16. The Tribunal’s judgment sets out the basis for calculating overstay rent but does not explain how, if at all, the payment was taken into account. Nor does it make clear whether the sums ordered were expressed on a basis excluding any credit for that payment.

17. In those circumstances, there is a material uncertainty as to whether the Tribunal considered the payment or its effect on the monetary relief granted.

18. That omission constitutes an error for the purposes of the appeal.

19. The error is material in that it affects the accounting between the parties. However, it does not affect the Tribunal’s findings as to liability, including the expiry of the tenancy, the Defendant’s continued occupation, or the entitlement of the Claimant to recover sums for that occupation.

20. Those findings are unaffected and stand.

Disposal

21. The Court is satisfied that it is not necessary to remit the matter. The issue is one of accounting, and the proper treatment of the payment can be determined on the material before the Court.

22. The payment of AED 285,000 must be brought into account in determining the sums due between the parties. It is to be treated as a credit in favour of the Defendant and applied in reduction of the sums otherwise due for overstay rent and continuing occupation charges.

23. Save to that extent, the judgment of the Tribunal is affirmed.

Costs

24. The Court exercises its discretion under Rule 53.118 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”) by reference to the general principles in RDC Part 38. While the Respondent has succeeded in resisting the appeal in substance, the Appellant has achieved limited success on a discrete issue. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate to apply the general rule that costs follow the event.

25. However, the Appellant failed, without explanation, to attend the hearing listed on 22 May 2026, thereby causing that hearing to be aborted and giving rise to wasted costs. That conduct is a relevant and significant factor under RDC 38.8 and 38.9.

26. Doing the best the Court can on a summary basis, the just order is that there be no order as to the costs of the appeal generally, but that the Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of 22 May 2026, which the Court summarily assesses in the sum of USD 2,000.

Orders

27. The Court will order: