The British Council v Ana-Maria Beldica
[2024] EAT 92
Sobara Simon-Hart v Standard Chartered Bank
20 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2957 (KB)
High Court
A former bank employee sued her employer for unfair treatment. The judge sided with the bank because the applicable law in Dubai didn't support the employee's claims, and the case should have been heard in Dubai, not England.
Key Facts
- •Ms Simon-Hart (Claimant) was employed by Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) in the DIFC from October 2014 to October 2018.
- •She claims breach of contract, alleging sex, race, and nationality discrimination, victimisation, and failure to make reasonable adjustments for her work-related mental health issues.
- •SCB applied for summary judgment and/or strike-out.
- •The employment contract was governed by DIFC Employment Law (initially No. 3 of 2012, later No. 2 of 2019).
- •SCB terminated the contract citing excessive sick leave under clause 14.1 and the Previous Law (article 36).
Legal Principles
CPR 3.4(2)(a) – Striking out unwinnable cases that waste resources.
Harris v Bolt Burden [2000] CPP Rep 70
CPR 24.3 – Summary judgment test (principles from Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)).
Easyair Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
Expert evidence on foreign law is admissible if reasonably required (CPR 35.1).
CPR 35.1
DIFC Employment Law does not imply terms into contracts; rights under DIFC law are justiciable only in DIFC courts.
Hana Al Herz v The Dubai International Financial Centre Authority [2013] DIFC CA; Expert opinions
Contract terms are interpreted to give effect to all terms (DIFC Contract Law, article 54).
DIFC Contract Law, article 54
Braganza duty: Discretionary contractual powers must be exercised in good faith and for proper purposes.
DIFC case law (cited by experts)
Outcomes
Summary judgment for SCB on claims related to termination (paragraphs 29 and 31).
Claimant's argument that clause 14.5 displaced article 36 was rejected. Expert evidence showed no basis to imply terms from DIFC Employment Law into the contract, and the Al Herz case supported the view that DIFC courts are the proper forum for such disputes.
Strike-out of claims for breach of express terms (paragraphs 11, 16, 22, 26, 32).
Claims lacked merit; relevant clauses did not support the allegations, and policies were not contractual.
Strike-out of claims for breach of implied terms (relating to ongoing performance of contract).
Claimant failed to demonstrate how relevant terms were implied into the contract and how they were breached; expert evidence supported SCB's position.
Strike-out of paragraphs 35(b) to (e) – these failed to plead any cause of action.
Insufficiently pleaded.