July 13, 2026 SCT - Judgments and Orders
Claim No: SCT 039/2026
THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS
IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
BETWEEN
PHOEBE
Claimant/Respondent
and
PETER
Defendant/Appellant
ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE ROGER STEWART
UPON the claim having been filed on 20 January 2026 and amended on 22 January 2026 (the “Claim”)
AND UPON the Judgment of SCT Judge Maitha AlShehhi dated 21 May 2026 (the “Judgment”)
AND UPON the Defendant’s Appeal Notice dated 4 June 2026 seeking permission to appeal the Judgment (the “Permission to Appeal Application”)
AND UPON the Claimant’s response dated 9 June 2026 to the Application for Permission to Appeal
AND UPON considering the documents and submissions filed by both parties and recorded on the case file
AND UPON the Claim having been listed for a hearing before H.E. Justice Roger Stewart on 6 July 2026, with the Claimant and the Defendant’s representative in attendance (the “Permission to Appeal Hearing”)
AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Permission to Appeal Application is dismissed.
2. The Defendant shall bear any DIFC Court costs which the Claimant has incurred.
Issued by:
Delvin Sumo
SCT Judge and Assistant Registrar
Date of Issue: 13 July 2026
At: 2pm
SCHEDULE OF REASONS
Introduction
1. This is an application by the Defendant for permission to appeal and set aside the Judgment.
The Parties
2. The Claimant is Phoebe, the owner of unit located in DIFC, Dubai, UAE (the “Unit”). Throughout these proceedings, she has appeared in person.
3. The Defendant is Peter, a company registered in Dubai, UAE. In these proceedings, the Defendant has appeared by its representative, Mr Piper.
Background
4. This dispute arises out of renovation carried out by the Defendant for the Claimant at the Unit arising out of an agreement dated 8 September 2025.
5. The original contract price was AED 162,000 but this appears to have been increased by agreement to AED 177,000.
6. The Claimant submitted that she paid AED 164,600 to the Defendant and claimed a total of AED 120,000 representing the costs of repair and completion works as well as hotel expenses incurred (AED 8,000) and an alleged lost opportunity to rent out the Unit. She provided supporting evidence in relation to the defects.
7. The Defendant failed to file a Defence on the eRegistry portal but submitted an email dated 25 February 2026 which failed to respond in detail to the claims made but suggested only that some final post-handover touch ups were provided which would be done on payment of an alleged amount of AED 16,200 which was said to be the balance of the work. No evidence was served by the Defendant.
The Judgment
8. In her Judgment, which runs to some 12 pages and 55 paragraphs, the Judge allowed the Claimant’s claim to the extent of AED 78,570.50. The Judge made findings:
(a) That the fact that the Claimant moved in after the original handover date of 28 November 2025 did not demonstrate acceptance of completion of the Unit;
(b) That it was accepted that the contract works were not 100% complete;
(c) That the Defendant had failed to identify items in works spent by contractors hired by the Claimant which did not form part of the contract works;
(d) That given the acceptance that works were incomplete and the failure of the Defendant to rectify or complete items, it was reasonable for the Claimant to hire alternative contractors;
(e) That the incomplete or defective work substantially exceeded the 5% which the Defendant identified as being the limit of such work;
(f) That the Claimant was entitled to AED 8,000 in respect of hotel costs incurred whilst works which should have formed part of the contract were carried out;
(g) That the Claimant was also entitled to AED 70,570.50 in relation to monies actually paid to other contractors to complete or rectify works which should have formed part of the contract; but
(h) The Claimant was not entitled to any sums for lost income or revenue as no evidence had been provided for the same; and
(i) That the Claimant was accordingly entitled to judgment for AED 78,570.50 by way of damages.
The Test for Permission to Appeal
9. The circumstances in which the Court of First instance may give permission to appeal, in respect of appeals from the SCT are strictly circumscribed by Article 21 of the DIFC Courts law No. 2 2025 which provides:
“21. Appeals Against Small Claims Tribunal Judgments
A. Judgments of the Small Claims Tribunal may be appealed before the Courts of First Instance in accordance with the procedures established under the DIFC Laws, DIFC Regulations, Rules of the Courts or any Practice Direction or Order issued by the DIFC Courts, where the appeal relates to:
1. A question of law
2. An allegation of a miscarriage of justice
3. An issue of procedural fairness; or
4. A matter provided for in or under DIFC Laws
10. There is no right to appeal on questions of fact. This is unsurprising given that hearings before the SCT are intended to be informal as set out in RDC 53.51 and that the strict rules of evidence do not apply as set out in RDC 53.53.
11. It is worth emphasising the important policy reasons which lie behind restrictions on rights of appeal from the SCT.
12. The SCT deals with monetary disputes where the amount at issue is below AED 500,000 (or, if the parties agree, up to AED 1,000,000). Although AED 500,000 is a substantial amount of money, it is also a sum which can very easily be spent on legal fees, if lawyers get involved in a dispute, relatively quickly.
13. Moreover, the parties to litigation will, even if unrepresented, spend very substantial time on disputes.
14. The SCT deliberately uses procedures which are designed to minimise time and cost and seek to ensure that judgments are issued relatively quickly. By doing so, it seeks provide an independent and impartial service at a cost which is proportionate to the sums involved. It seeks to do so in a way which means that both parties do not inevitably lose simply from being involved in a legal dispute.
15. However, the informality and speed of the proceedings inevitably means that issues are not investigated as fully as they would be if the amounts in dispute were substantially larger. Furthermore, it may mean that more “mistakes” are made in the sense that, if much more time and expense were incurred it is at least possible that a Court could come to a different conclusion.
16. There are limited safeguards provided by the rules governing permission to appeal. These safeguards are, quite deliberately, limited. The Court is not permitted to grant permission on an issue of fact unless one of the other grounds for permitting permission is made out. The fact that an Appeal Court might have come to a different conclusion on an issue of fact is irrelevant. Permission cannot be granted on an issue of fact even if an Appeal Court considers that it is very likely that it would have come to a different conclusion. These restrictions are necessary to avoid parties expending disproportionate time and expense in investigating the issues.
17. The above considerations refer to all disputes. However, there is particular force in the policy considerations applying in relation to building disputes. Such disputes very often involve the consideration of large number of relatively minor items. Further expert evidence may, at least in theory, help to resolve some of these issues. The consequence is that the risk of disproportionate time and effort being involved in considering factual disputes is even greater than in other types of dispute.
18. All of the above analysis provides a strong incentive to parties to seek to settle their disputes amicably before going to court. It is often said that a good settlement involves both parties being dissatisfied with an outcome – but a settlement:
(a) Brings the dispute to an end and allows the parties to move on;
(b) Stops expenditure of time and energy on resolution of a dispute; and
(c) Removes uncertainty as to what a Court may do.
19. It is for this reason that the SCT court procedures involve a compulsory consultation (RDC 53.21). That consultation is an opportunity for the parties to seek to come to a settlement. If they do not, the Court will resolve the matter for them but in a way which is necessarily uncertain to the parties and where there will be limited opportunity for further appeal.
20. Finally, it should be noted that it is important that a party should present its full case to the SCT judge. The hearing before the SCT judge is not intended to be a dress rehearsal with a party having another opportunity to present its case at a further main hearing on appeal. The hearing before the SCT is the opportunity for a party to present its case. If it does not do so and does not call evidence or put forward submissions that it subsequently wishes it had done, it is very unlikely that it will be able to have a second chance on appeal.
21. One of the features of this case is that the Defendant only put in very limited material before the Judge. She could only consider the material that was presented to her. The Grounds of Appeal were almost entirely generic. At the oral hearing before me, the Defendant’s representative sought to put in a 3 page document which had not previously been communicated to the Claimant. I read the document without prejudice to considering whether it should be admitted. Having read all of the material, it is apparent that the Defendant did not really seek to deal with the details of the dispute despite being afforded every opportunity to do so.
The Grounds of Appeal
22. In the Permission to Appeal Application, nine grounds are set out namely:
(a) That the evidence established that substantial completion of the project had taken place;
(b) That a reasonable opportunity had not been given to rectify outstanding works given that a medical emergency had occurred to the Defendant’s main representative;
(c) That there was no independent technical evidence but rather reports, quotations and assessments from replacement contractors;
(d) That there was a failure to distinguish between rectification wors, upgrades and new works;
(e) That there was a failure to consider the alleged outstanding balance of AED 16,200;
(f) That there was a failure to consider client changes and additional works;
(g) That the damages claimed were not sufficiently proven;
(h) That the damages claimed were disproportionate to the proven issues; and
(i) That there should be a reconsideration of the claimed hotel expenses.
23. The recitation of the grounds set out above demonstrates that the Defendant is substantially seeking to re-argue (or, in some cases, argue for the first time) matters of fact upon which the Judge came to conclusions on the evidence presented at the hearing. As set out above, this is impermissible when seeking permission to appeal from the SCT.
24. In relation to the individual proposed grounds of appeal:
(a) There is no identified basis upon which the Judge’s conclusion as to substantial completion could be legitimately challenged. There was express rejection of the proposition that simply moving into the Unit demonstrated such completion. It was a matter which the Judge raised specifically with the Defendant at the oral hearing before her. Further, given the extent of works found to be defective or outstanding, it appears clear that the finding was open to the Judge.
(b) The assertion that there should have been an opportunity to rectify works is unsustainable. It seems from the summary of the case that there was evidence upon which the Judge could conclude that the Defendant was doing other work whilst claiming a medical emergency. This was, again, explored at the hearing. Further, the Defendant’s own email put forward by way of defence supports the suggestion that rectification was only going to be done on the basis of payment of an outstanding amount not yet due. At the Hearing before me, the Defendant’s representative confirmed that he was not prepared carry out further work unless the final payment was made.
(c) The allegations as to lack of an independent expert is misconceived. The Judge was entitled to proceed on the basis of the evidence that was provided which is recorded as including evidence on behalf of the Claimant which was not challenged by the Defendant. It was open to the Defendant to challenge such evidence but this was not done.
(d) So far as failing to identify matters which were not within the contract, the Defendant did not do this either in writing or orally so the Judge cannot be criticised for not doing so.
(e) In relation to the outstanding balance, this did not appear to fall due as the works were not complete. The suggestion that it should have been taken into account was not one which was made to the Judge. It is not contained in the materials provided before the hearing. Although the Defendant’s representative said that he had raised the point before the Judge, I consider, having listened, to the recording, that this is incorrect. The Judge cannot be criticised for not taking into account a point which was not made to her.
(f) The alleged failure to take into account changes was not part of the Defendant’s case at trial and cannot be relied upon now.
(g) The alleged failure to prove damages or that they were disproportionate is unsustainable given that they were based on sums paid. Moreover, alternative evidence was not produced by the Defendant.
(h) There is no indication as to the basis upon which the hotel costs should have been reconsidered. Such reconsideration is not permitted on an appeal. The Judge was entitled to find that the costs were recoverable as a result of the failures of the Defendant.
Conclusion
25. None of the grounds of appeal have a real prospect of success in respect of matters where appeals are permitted and permission for appeal is accordingly refused.
26. No request for any costs was made by the Claimant save that any Court costs should be incurred by the Defendant. That order seems appropriate.
