Spectrum

A Dubai misdemeanour court has acquitted a police officer accused of damaging a farm fence and unlawfully cutting trees, finding that the prosecution had not presented evidence strong enough to prove misconduct or abuse of authority.

Dubai’s Court of Cassation has upheld the conviction of an Arab woman found guilty of causing a fatal crash while driving under the influence of alcohol, rejecting her final appeal and affirming all previous rulings issued by the Misdemeanours Court and the Court of Appeal. The courts ordered her to pay a Dh10,000 fine and Dh200,000 in blood money to the family of the man she fatally struck.

The incident occurred in October last year after the woman consumed alcohol late at night and drove along a two-way service road in the Al Qudra area. She abruptly swerved to the right, colliding with another vehicle and pushing it into a lamp post and a parked car before it rebounded into a third vehicle. Her car then veered again, hitting three pedestrians standing on the roadside.

One man of Arab nationality died from severe injuries, while two others of different nationalities were injured.

Meta Platforms has prevailed in a major US antitrust case after a federal judge rejected government efforts to force the company to divest Instagram and WhatsApp, ruling that Meta does not hold a monopoly in social media.

The decision marks the first clear win for Big Tech since US antitrust scrutiny intensified during Donald Trump’s presidency, and represents a major blow to the Federal Trade Commission, which is also pursuing a high-profile monopoly case against Amazon. The FTC had sought to compel Meta to restructure or sell Instagram and WhatsApp, arguing the multibillion-dollar purchases were designed to neutralise emerging rivals.

Following the ruling, Meta’s shares trimmed earlier losses and were down just 0.3% at $599.95 in late afternoon trading. “Our products are beneficial for people and businesses and exemplify American innovation,” a Meta spokesperson said, adding that the company would continue to work with the U.S. administration.

The FTC expressed disappointment, with spokesperson Joe Simonson stating the agency was “reviewing all our options.”

Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Although the FTC did not challenge the deals at the time, it sued in 2020, claiming the company—then known as Facebook -- held a monopoly over platforms used for sharing content among friends and family. It argued Meta’s closest competitors were Snapchat and smaller app MeWe, distinguishing them from platforms such as X, TikTok, YouTube and Reddit, where users broadcast to wider audiences.

During an April trial, the FTC cited internal comments including a 2008 email in which CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote that “it is better to buy than compete.” Meta countered that the agency had ignored strong competitive pressure from TikTok, YouTube and Apple’s messaging ecosystem, and defended acquisitions as a legitimate business strategy.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg sided largely with Meta, finding the FTC had defined the market too narrowly and failed to account for major shifts in social media usage. He noted evidence showing users frequently switch between TikTok, YouTube and Meta’s platforms, especially during service outages. TikTok, he said, posed such a threat that Meta invested $4 billion last year in developing Reels.

Boasberg ruled that excluding TikTok from the FTC’s market definition weakened the case to the point of collapse. “Even if YouTube is out, including TikTok alone defeats the FTC’s case,” he said.

The FTC criticised the ruling, pointing out that Boasberg is currently facing calls for impeachment -- an effort backed by some Republican lawmakers after criticism from former President Trump.

The Meta case forms part of a wider US crackdown on Big Tech, including Department of Justice actions against Google and a separate case against Apple.

The Bombay High Court has held that an arbitrator who suspends proceedings after unilaterally revising fees -- without party consent and without resigning -- automatically loses their mandate under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan ruled in SS Trading Company v. SNC Trading Company that an arbitrator cannot indefinitely keep an arbitration stalled while insisting on enhanced fees not agreed to by the parties.

The Court noted that although the arbitrator was dissatisfied with the fee payments, he neither resigned nor continued the hearings. Instead, he froze the proceedings until increased costs were paid. This, the Court said, had no statutory backing.

The dispute stemmed from a 2019 agreement, with a sole arbitrator appointed in September 2022. After repeated delays by the respondent, the arbitrator imposed penalties of ₹10,000 per hearing per party. On April 20, 2023, he declared the tribunal “suspended till funds are arranged”, citing an unworkably low quoted fee.

Despite objections to the unilateral hike and multiple requests to resume hearings, the arbitrator fixed no further dates after June 2, 2023. He also sought an apology from the claimant, but never stepped down.

The Court held that fee proposals must be mutually agreed, and if parties reject a proposed increase, the arbitrator may either resign or continue and later exercise a lien over the award under Section 39. Keeping proceedings in limbo, however, is impermissible.

Since the arbitrator did neither, the Court ruled that the mandate had expired under Sections 14, 15 and 29A, as his conduct showed an unwillingness to complete the proceedings without delay.

As the arbitration agreement remains valid, the Court directed Presolv360 to appoint a new sole arbitrator within two weeks. All hearings will be conducted online unless the parties decide otherwise, and the fresh tribunal will continue from the stage where proceedings were abandoned.

The Abu Dhabi Civil Family and Administrative Court has ordered a client to pay a law firm Dh125,000 in outstanding legal fees after he failed to honour a signed agreement for representation in a commercial claim and a criminal complaint that was later closed.

The court noted that the defendant neither attended hearings nor disputed the contract or the agreed fees, leading the judge to conclude that the amount remained payable.

Case documents show that the law firm sought the agreed fees, 5 per cent legal interest from the due date until full settlement, and reimbursement of litigation costs. The firm explained that it had been appointed to act for the client in a financial claim before Abu Dhabi commercial courts and to file a criminal complaint with Dubai Public Prosecution. Despite completing the required work, the client allegedly failed to pay without valid justification.

In its judgment, the court reiterated that a lawyer is entitled to remuneration as set out in a written fee agreement. Although courts may reduce fees if requested by a client and deemed excessive, such discretion does not apply when the agreement is clear, proportionate and signed before the legal work is completed. In the absence of a valid written contract, courts may instead determine fees based on effort and the benefit gained by the client.

The court found that a valid agreement existed and that the lawsuit merely sought to enforce its terms. There were no requests to amend the fee amount, no arguments over effort or value, and no evidence of contractual breach by the law firm. The firm had already completed the criminal complaint procedures in Dubai before the case was closed, while the client neither appeared nor contested the agreement at any stage.

The Dubai Misdemeanours Court has sentenced an Asian man to a jail term after he was found guilty of possessing Dh2,000 obtained through an online apartment rental scam.

The incident occurred in March, when a victim -- also of Asian nationality -- lodged a complaint after being deceived by a fraudulent listing advertising an apartment for rent. After contacting the advertiser via Facebook, he transferred Dh2,000 as a reservation deposit.

According to the complaint, the defendant met the victim in person and showed him an apartment in Dubai’s Al Satwa district. Shortly afterwards, he switched off his phone and blocked the victim on WhatsApp and Facebook, leading the victim to realise he had been scammed.

Investigators later confirmed the listing was fake and created for the sole purpose of deception. A Dubai police officer testified that the Criminal Investigation Department traced the bank transfer, which ultimately led to the suspect’s arrest.

The investigation found that the man had been using a fabricated online profile to entice prospective tenants, sharing images of luxury apartments at attractive prices and exploiting residents’ search for affordable housing.

The court convicted him of possessing funds derived from electronic fraud and imposed a custodial sentence.

The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance has rejected a Dh1 million damages claim filed by a commercial establishment against three defendants, including two former employees accused of unfair competition, leaking confidential information and diverting clients.

The company sought material and moral compensation, plus 5 per cent legal interest, alleging that the defendants’ actions had harmed its business performance and reputation.

Court documents show that the first defendant worked as an accountant and sales manager from 2017 until late 2023, while the third defendant was employed as an administrative officer until January 2024. The firm claimed it detected a drop in sales after learning that the first defendant had launched a competing business -- allegedly supported by the administrative employee -- and that both had channelled clients to the new venture while still employed.

The plaintiff relied on a criminal ruling from Sharjah’s Court of First Instance, which had fined the first defendant Dh20,000 for disclosing company secrets and misusing corporate data. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

However, after examining the evidence, the Dubai court appointed an expert who found no direct relationship between the plaintiff and the new company linked to the former employee. The expert also confirmed that the employees were not bound by any contractual clause preventing them from joining or establishing a competing business after leaving their roles.

The report further revealed that the company’s sales had not decreased following the launch of the competing firm; instead, revenues rose in 2022 and 2023 when compared with 2021 -- the year the new entity was founded.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to produce audited financial statements or documents proving monetary losses or profit reduction. The expert noted that the competing company’s transactions with two of the plaintiff’s clients took place only after the defendants’ employment had ended.

London-based Ashurst and US. firm Perkins Coie announced on Monday that they have agreed to merge, forming a combined practice of around 3,000 lawyers and generating $2.7 billion in revenue -- placing the new entity among the world’s top 20 law firms.

Perkins Coie, one of several firms that successfully challenged executive orders issued by U.S. President Donald Trump targeting them for perceived political associations, will join forces with Ashurst under the new name Ashurst Perkins Coie.

Ashurst’s global CEO Paul Jenkins told Reuters that merger talks began in February and were driven by a shared long-term vision. “From the outset, our conversations have focused on the future -- not just the next few years, but the decade ahead and beyond,” he said.

Perkins Coie managing partner Bill Malley said Ashurst expands the firm’s international footprint, adding that the merger strengthens their ability to provide seamless cross-border legal support. He noted the combined firm will be exceptionally positioned to serve clients across sectors such as technology, financial services, energy, and infrastructure.

Jenkins and Malley will serve as global co-CEOs of the merged firm, which will have 52 offices spanning 23 countries. Jenkins said there are currently no plans to add new locations.

The deal reflects a growing wave of transatlantic law-firm consolidation, following recent agreements such as Herbert Smith Freehills’ tie-up with Kramer Levin and the 2023 merger of Allen & Overy with Shearman & Sterling.

The merger remains subject to partner approval at both firms and, if approved, is expected to be finalized in late 2026.

Perkins Coie -- which represented Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign -- was targeted earlier this year by a Trump executive order suspending security clearances for its employees and limiting their access to federal facilities and contracts. A federal judge overturned the order in May, though the administration is appealing. Similar orders issued against WilmerHale, Jenner & Block and Susman Godfrey were also invalidated.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that its 2022 Rules permitting the entry and practice of foreign lawyers and law firms in India do not require prior approval from either the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the Central government.

The submission was made before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while hearing petitions filed by Dentons Link Legal and CMS IndusLaw. The firms have challenged the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam, representing one of the petitioners, argued that the BCI had yet to demonstrate that it had obtained the mandatory approvals from the CJI or the Central government before issuing these Rules.

In response, counsel for the BCI said, “We don’t need the approval… Allow me to file a counter and I will justify.”

During the hearing, the Bench reiterated its concerns about the BCI Rules, particularly the provisions that enable severe action against law firms on the basis of only a preliminary inquiry. The Court remarked that the Rules are “a mess” and urged the Council to consider amendments.

“It’s a mess. Why don’t you [BCI] bring in an amendment? These rules apply across the country,” the Court observed, adding that the Council should focus on properly framing the regulations rather than offering repeated explanations.

The BCI responded that a consultation process is currently underway and that suggestions are being reviewed. The Bench, however, pressed the Council to refine the Rules, remarking, “You are the Bar Council after all.”

The Court granted the BCI two weeks to file its affidavit and adjourned the matter to January. Its earlier directive restraining the BCI from taking any final decision in proceedings against the law firms will remain in force. “Don’t take the final decision,” the Bench reiterated.

Both IndusLaw and Dentons Link Legal are contesting the validity of the Rules and the show cause notices issued to them in August regarding alleged unauthorised collaborations between Indian and foreign law firms in violation of BCI regulations.

The petitioners argue that the BCI lacks the power under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate the entry and practice of foreign lawyers and foreign law firms in India. According to IndusLaw, Section 49 of the Act does not authorise the BCI to frame such rules.

Dentons Link Legal has additionally invoked Sections 49(1)(c) and (e) of the Advocates Act, contending that any such regulations would require prior approval from the CJI or the Central government. Without these approvals, they argue, the Rules are ultra vires. The firm also pointed out that while the Rules deal extensively with foreign entities, they fail to define what constitutes an “Indian law firm.”

Previously, the High Court had also expressed reservations about the Rules, especially the provisions permitting drastic action based solely on preliminary inquiries.