UAE

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family, Civil and Administrative Cases has ordered an individual to pay Dh7,599 in compensation for physically assaulting another person, verbally abusing him in public and damaging his mobile phone by forcibly throwing it.

The claimant had filed a lawsuit seeking Dh20,000 in compensation for material and moral damages arising from the incident. His claim included Dh5,099 for the damaged phone and Dh14,901 for the physical assault, verbal abuse and resulting harm to his dignity and reputation.

He also requested interest at 5 per cent a year from the date of filing the case until full payment, in addition to court fees and legal expenses. In support of his claim, he submitted the criminal judgment against the defendant, a certificate confirming that the judgment had become final, and the phone's purchase invoice.

The court examined the purchase invoice, which established that the phone was worth Dh5,099. Having found that the device was damaged as a result of the defendant's actions, the court concluded that the claimant had suffered a direct financial loss equivalent to its value.

It consequently awarded Dh5,099 to compensate for the material damage caused by the destruction of the phone.

The court also considered the findings of the criminal judgment, which established that the defendant had directed insulting and abusive remarks at the claimant, harming his honour and reputation. The incident had taken place in public, in the presence of other people, and involved both verbal abuse and the forcible seizure and throwing of the phone.

The court held that such conduct could undermine a person's dignity and standing in society, causing embarrassment, distress and psychological suffering. It treated these consequences as moral damage distinct from the financial loss resulting from the damaged device.

Finding a direct causal link between the defendant's conduct and the claimant's non-material harm, the court assessed compensation for the emotional and psychological suffering at Dh2,500.

The total compensation was therefore fixed at Dh7,599, comprising Dh5,099 for material damage and Dh2,500 for moral harm.

The Dubai Commercial Court has rescinded a contract worth Dh92,000 for the supply of network security devices after finding that the supplier had exceeded the agreed delivery deadline by four weeks and failed to provide documents certifying the products’ authenticity and compliance with specifications.

The court ordered the defendant company to refund the Dh42,000 advance payment made by the plaintiff and pay Dh10,000 in compensation, in addition to returning the security cheque and paying legal interest, court expenses and attorney fees.

The dispute arose from a contract signed in October 2025 under which the defendant agreed to supply a firewall device and a three-year protection subscription within seven weeks of receiving the first installment. The agreement also required the supplier to provide certificates and technical documents establishing the products’ authenticity and conformity with the agreed specifications.

The plaintiff paid Dh42,000 in advance. In January 2026, the supplier informed the company that the devices had arrived. However, when the plaintiff sought to inspect the equipment and examine the required documentation before completing the delivery process and paying the outstanding amount, the necessary arrangements and documents were not provided.

Amid the dispute over delivery delays, product quality and contractual obligations, the court appointed an expert to examine the agreement and assess whether the parties had fulfilled their respective responsibilities.

The expert’s report found that the supplier had missed the agreed delivery deadline by four weeks and had failed to produce the certificates and supporting documents required to establish the devices’ origin, authenticity and compliance with the contractual specifications.

The court concluded that the delay and failure to provide the required documentation constituted a breach of contract, satisfying the conditions for judicial rescission.

It also found that the supplier’s conduct had caused the plaintiff company material and moral damage, warranting compensation of Dh10,000. The defendant’s request for similar compensation was rejected because it had failed to prove that the rescission had caused it any damage.

In addition to rescinding the agreement, the court ordered the supplier to return the advance payment of Dh42,000, hand back the security cheque and pay legal interest, litigation costs and attorney fees.

A Dubai court has dismissed a company’s attempt to establish ownership of a luxury yacht, ruling that the matter had already been conclusively determined by final court judgments. The company was ordered to bear the legal costs and pay Dh6,000 in legal fees.

The claimant argued that it had financed the yacht’s construction and was its rightful owner, although the vessel was registered in the name of another company. It also sought to halt enforcement of an earlier judgment, alleging that the ruling had been secured through fraud, deception and collusion.

According to court records, the company said it had entered into agreements with shipbuilders in 2009 to construct the yacht for its benefit. It maintained that the purchase price and associated expenses had been paid from its own funds.

To support its claim, the company submitted payment records, receipts and other documents. It argued that the yacht had subsequently been registered through a separate company established for that purpose and asked the court to recognise its ownership, allowing the vessel to be registered in its name or that of an affiliated entity.

The dispute stemmed from an earlier case in which a court found that the yacht’s registered title was not genuine and recognised another party as its lawful owner. That judgment also invalidated the vessel’s transfer and sale to another entity, permitting the successful party to register it through an affiliated company.

The ruling was subsequently upheld on appeal and by the Court of Cassation, making it final and binding.

Ownership Dispute Cannot Be Reopened

In dismissing the latest claim, the court held that the central question of ownership had already been adjudicated and could not be litigated again. It relied on the legal principle that a final judgment bars a fresh challenge where the parties, subject matter and legal grounds are substantially the same.

The court explained that this principle extends beyond the formal outcome of an earlier case to the essential issues underpinning the judgment. It found that the previous proceedings had definitively addressed the validity of the yacht’s title and ownership, including the invalidity of the registered ownership arrangement.

The claimant could not therefore initiate new proceedings to challenge or circumvent a judgment that had already acquired final legal effect.

The court also considered the corporate structure of the companies involved, emphasising that each registered company possesses a separate legal personality from its shareholders, managers and affiliated entities.

It concluded that the evidence submitted by the claimant was insufficient to establish that it was the yacht’s legal owner or that the company named on the registration documents was merely holding the vessel in name only.

Finding no legal grounds to disturb the earlier judgments, the court dismissed the ownership claim in its entirety. It also rejected the company’s urgent application to suspend enforcement of the previous ruling. The claimant was ordered to pay the court costs and Dh6,000 in legal fees.

Three collective cases involving Dh12.3 million in claims were resolved through judicial deposits and amicable agreement.

An Abu Dhabi court has recovered Dh7,811,933 in unpaid labour dues for 948 workers within three months, helping safeguard their financial entitlements while supporting employment stability and business continuity.

The Abu Dhabi Labour Court secured the payments through judicial deposits and direct payments under amicable settlements in three collective cases, involving total claims of Dh12.3 million. The recovery was achieved through co-ordinated efforts by the court, the UAE Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE) and the parties involved in enforcing the settlements.

Under the agreements, 457 workers received their full entitlements, while another 491 were paid part of the amounts due to them. The outstanding balances are to be recovered through regular instalments, allowing the collection process to continue.

The settlement process also enabled the workers to retain their jobs with the companies concerned. The approach is intended to preserve stable employment relationships, sustain economic activity and help businesses maintain their operations while meeting their financial obligations.

Resolving Labour Disputes in the UAE

The UAE resolved 98.6 per cent of labour disputes amicably during the first half of 2026, according to figures released by MoHRE.

The ministry's dispute resolution system settled 185,793 cases during the period, while 2,481 disputes, accounting for 1.4 per cent of the total, were referred to the judiciary for further proceedings.

One factor behind the high settlement rate is MoHRE's authority to adjudicate labour disputes directly when claims do not exceed Dh50,000. The measure has helped speed up the resolution of employment-related claims, ease the workload of local courts and enable workers and other claimants to obtain their legal entitlements more quickly.

The Abu Dhabi Federal Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of two suspects for consuming psychotropic and narcotic substances, sentencing each to three months in prison followed by deportation from the UAE.

The case began after the Public Prosecution referred the suspects and others to criminal trial on charges including membership of an organised gang and possession of amphetamines with intent to traffic.

According to the case documents, the first suspect consumed morphine outside the circumstances permitted by law and later took the psychotropic substances Nordazepam, Oxazepam and Temazepam. The second and third suspects were also accused of consuming morphine.

The court of first instance sentenced the first and second suspects to three months in prison each for drug consumption. It also ordered the confiscation of the seized items and their deportation from the UAE after completion of their sentences.

The Public Prosecution appealed against the ruling concerning the charge of belonging to an organised gang. The Federal Court of Appeal accepted the appeal in form but rejected it on its merits.

The Federal Supreme Court subsequently upheld the appeal ruling, leaving the prison sentences, confiscation order and deportation of the two convicted suspects in place.

The Al Ain Court of Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases recently ordered a man to pay Dh600,000 to a camel seller after he received 10 camels but failed to pay the agreed price. The court also ordered him to bear the lawsuit fees and expenses.

According to case papers, the seller filed a lawsuit seeking Dh600,000 from the buyer, saying he had sold him 10 camels for that amount. Despite receiving the animals, the buyer failed to make the payment even after repeated demands, the seller said.

To support his claim, the seller submitted WhatsApp exchanges between the two parties in which he demanded payment and the buyer responded in a manner that acknowledged the outstanding amount and indicated that he would pay it.

The court found that the WhatsApp correspondence constituted evidence supporting the seller's claim. The exchanges included the seller's repeated requests for payment and the buyer's responses promising to settle the debt.

The court also noted that the buyer did not dispute the contents of the WhatsApp conversations during the case preparation stage. Instead, he acknowledged that he had purchased the camels from the seller and owed the full amount claimed, while saying that he was unable to pay it at that time.

The court therefore ordered the buyer to pay Dh600,000 to the seller, in addition to the applicable lawsuit fees and expenses.

A woman who called off her planned marriage has been ordered by an Abu Dhabi court to pay Dh60,000 to her former suitor after failing to return cash and gold bars he had given her before the wedding.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court issued the ruling after finding that the woman had acknowledged the debt in writing and subsequently agreed to settle the dispute for Dh60,000, but failed to make the agreed payment.

According to court records, the man had given the woman cash and gold after they agreed to marry. He said the items had a combined value of Dh67,827.

When the woman later decided not to proceed with the marriage, the man asked her to return the money and gold. She acknowledged that she owed him the amounts and items but did not repay him, prompting him to file a lawsuit.

In his claim, the man sought the return of all the cash and gold he had given her. He also sought Dh31,500, representing the stated value of the gold, if the bars could not be returned.

He supported his claim with bank-transfer records and a written acknowledgement signed by both parties.

Settlement

During the proceedings, the former couple informed the court that they had reached an agreement under which the woman would pay Dh60,000 in two instalments. They initially asked the court to formally record the agreement as an enforceable settlement.

However, when the case returned to court for confirmation, only the man appeared. He told the court that the woman had declined to attend and sign the final settlement agreement.

The court found that the woman's earlier written acknowledgement established that she owed Dh17,300 in cash and two one-ounce gold bars.

It held that the signed acknowledgement was legally binding and could not be disregarded unilaterally without a valid legal basis. The woman appeared before the court but did not dispute the authenticity or contents of the document. Instead, she proposed settling the entire dispute by paying Dh60,000, an offer that the man accepted.

As there was no evidence that she had paid the agreed amount, the court concluded that the debt remained outstanding. The court therefore ordered the woman to pay Dh60,000 to the man, in addition to court fees and legal expenses.

Two men who allegedly posed as representatives of a government entity to convince a man that he had won a Dh200,000 cash prize have been sentenced to six months in prison by a UAE court.

The Sharjah Misdemeanours Court convicted the two defendants in absentia and ordered their deportation from the country after the victim discovered that Dh84,000 had been taken from his bank account instead of receiving the promised prize.

How The Scam Unfolded

According to court records, the incident began with a phone call informing the victim that he had won Dh200,000. The callers allegedly claimed to represent a government entity, lending credibility to the unexpected prize and persuading the victim that the offer was genuine.

The men told him that certain procedures had to be completed before the prize could be released. They subsequently asked him to provide personal identification and banking information as part of what they described as a verification process.

The callers also persuaded the victim to disclose a one-time password (OTP) linked to his bank account. Believing that the information was required to complete the procedures and receive the prize, he complied with their requests.

The promised payment, however, never arrived. Instead, the victim discovered that Dh84,000 had been withdrawn from his account, according to the case records.

Court Proceedings

The victim reported the incident to the authorities, leading to the prosecution of the two men before the Sharjah Misdemeanours Court.

Prosecutors accused the defendants of using fraudulent methods to obtain the victim’s banking information and gain access to his funds. After examining the circumstances surrounding the calls and the subsequent movement of money, the court convicted both men.

Each defendant was sentenced in absentia to six months in prison, followed by deportation from the UAE.

The case illustrates a familiar pattern in financial fraud, in which criminals use the promise of an unexpected prize to create excitement and persuade victims to lower their guard.

The alleged use of a government identity added another layer of credibility to the deception, while the request for an OTP was critical to gaining access to the victim’s funds.

What appeared to be a Dh200,000 windfall therefore ended with the victim losing Dh84,000 instead.

Kaden Boriss has been named ‘Top Corporate Law Firm of the Year’ at the Global Brand Awards 2026, recognising the UAE-based firm’s position in corporate law and its expanding presence across regional and international markets.

The award was presented at the Global Brand Awards ceremony held at Address Sky View in Dubai on October 2. Dr Sunil Ambalavelil, Global Executive Chairman of Kaden Boriss, received the award on behalf of the firm from Mervyn D’Couto, Chief Managing Officer at HeyBobo.

Organised by UK-based Global Brands Magazine, the awards recognise brands across a range of industries for performance, innovation, customer experience and consistency. The 2026 edition brought together business leaders and brands from sectors including banking, real estate, technology, hospitality, education and professional services.

The recognition comes as Kaden Boriss continues to position its corporate legal practice around business-oriented advice, combining legal risk management with commercial considerations faced by companies operating in the UAE and other international markets.

“Corporate legal work should not be limited to identifying risks after they arise. Our philosophy is to understand the client’s business, anticipate the legal and regulatory challenges and build solutions that support sustainable growth,” Ambalavelil told The Law Reporters after receiving the award.

He said the firm’s approach was also centred on long-term relationships rather than individual transactions. “For us, effective legal counsel means understanding where a business is today, where it intends to go and how its legal structure can support that journey. The objective is to give clients clarity and confidence while protecting their interests as they expand,” he added.

The Global Brand Awards, now in their 14th edition, evaluated companies across international markets before the Dubai ceremony. Global Brands Magazine said the selection process involved research by its internal team and assessment by independent evaluators.

The awards also placed emphasis on the changing role of technology and artificial intelligence in business and branding. The 2026 programme included discussions on AI-driven customer engagement and the relationship between artificial intelligence and consumer trust.

Kaden Boriss’ recognition comes against a backdrop of growing demand for corporate legal services as businesses operating in the UAE navigate increasingly complex regulatory, investment and cross-border requirements.

The firm advises businesses on areas including corporate structuring, commercial agreements, mergers and acquisitions, investment and regulatory matters, with its wider professional network supporting clients on cross-border business requirements.

Ambalavelil said the award belonged to the wider Kaden Boriss team and reflected its emphasis on combining legal expertise with a practical understanding of business. “The strongest corporate legal advice is advice that works in the real world. It must be technically sound, commercially practical and aligned with the client’s long-term objectives,” he said.

The Global Brand Awards have previously recognised international brands including Emirates, Dubai Duty Free, HSBC, Standard Chartered, Microsoft, Malaysia Airlines and Harley-Davidson.

A Dubai court has upheld the validity and enforceability of a contract for the sale of a residential villa worth Dh23 million after the buyer demonstrated that he had paid the full purchase price.

The Gulf national had filed a lawsuit seeking a court order to confirm the validity of the agreement and compel completion of the procedures required to transfer ownership of the Dubai property into his name.

The buyer told the court that he had transferred the entire purchase amount to the seller through three bank transactions but that the seller had failed to complete the title transfer.

During the proceedings, the seller argued that the buyer still owed Dh210,000 towards the brokerage commission and sought to delay the transfer of ownership until the amount was settled.

The buyer agreed to pay Dh100,000 towards the brokerage commission and withdrew an earlier claim for Dh5 million in compensation. He instead limited his demands to securing recognition of the sales contract and its enforcement.

The seller’s legal representative subsequently accepted the Dh100,000 brokerage payment into the client’s account, confirmed the validity of the sales contract and acknowledged that the full purchase price had been received. The representative also raised no objection to the transfer of title.

The Dubai Real Estate Court found that the sales contract had been duly signed by both parties and that there were no legal obstacles preventing completion of the ownership transfer.

The court also found that the buyer had fulfilled his financial obligations under the agreement. Bank transfer records supported his claim that the full purchase price had been paid, while the seller’s representative had expressly acknowledged receipt of the amount.

The court concluded that the issue raised by the seller over the outstanding brokerage payment no longer constituted a basis for delaying the transfer after the agreed Dh100,000 payment had been accepted.

It therefore confirmed that the sales contract was valid and enforceable and directed each party to bear their respective share of fees, expenses and legal costs.