UAE

The Dubai Civil Court has rejected a lawsuit filed by two men seeking to overturn a judgment ordering them to jointly pay approximately €35.36 million, ruling that the issue of whether they had been properly notified had already been finally determined by the courts.

The plaintiffs had sought the annulment or invalidation of the earlier judgment, which was issued in a civil case brought by a company seeking recovery of the amount. The claim was linked to financial transfers allegedly made by the men to purchase gold and precious metals that were never delivered.

The court had previously ordered the two plaintiffs to pay the claimed amount. They subsequently challenged the ruling before the Court of Appeal, but their appeal was rejected after the court found that it had been filed after the prescribed deadline. The Court of Cassation later upheld the ruling. A subsequent petition seeking judicial review was also declared inadmissible.

The plaintiffs then brought a separate lawsuit challenging the validity of the earlier proceedings. They argued that one of them was a foreign national living outside the UAE who had not returned to the country since March 2023 and had not been properly notified of the original lawsuit or judgment in accordance with procedures governing notification of persons residing abroad.

They also submitted documents claiming that the company that had brought the original proceedings had entered bankruptcy or liquidation proceedings in a European country.

The Dubai Civil Court rejected the arguments, finding that the earlier judgment had already conclusively addressed the validity of the notification. As a result, the court held that the same issue could not be reopened through a new lawsuit.

The court therefore dismissed the case and ordered the two plaintiffs to pay the court fees and expenses.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a man to return Dh99,000 that was mistakenly transferred to his bank account and to pay Dh20,000 in compensation for material and moral damages.

The case arose after the claimant accidentally transferred the amount to the defendant, whose bank account details had previously been saved in the claimant’s banking application.

According to the case documents, the claimant said the defendant was a client of a company he owned. After discovering the mistaken transfer, he repeatedly asked the defendant to return the money, but the defendant allegedly delayed and refused to do so.

The claimant sought an order requiring the defendant to pay Dh100,000, along with Dh30,000 in compensation for the material and moral damages he said resulted from the refusal to return the money. He also sought legal fees and costs.

Money Withdrawn In Two Installments

The claimant said he had mistakenly transferred Dh99,000 from his bank account to the defendant’s account. After discovering the error, he contacted the defendant several times and requested repayment, but the money was not returned.

The claimant subsequently initiated criminal proceedings, resulting in a conviction against the defendant. He told the civil court that the defendant had withdrawn Dh95,000 of the transferred amount in two installments through an ATM.

The claimant argued that the defendant’s refusal to return the money had caused him both financial and non-financial harm.

Criminal Conviction Establishes Liability

The court said the earlier criminal judgment had established the defendant’s conviction, resolving the issue of his responsibility for the conduct.

Based on that judgment and the evidence before it, the court found the defendant liable for the amount that had been mistakenly transferred to his account.

The court therefore ordered him to return Dh99,000 to the claimant and awarded Dh20,000 in compensation for the material and moral damages suffered by the claimant. The court also ruled on the applicable court fees and costs.

A fraudster who tricked a tenant into transferring Dh42,500 in rent to a fake bank account has been convicted, with an Abu Dhabi court ordering him to return the money.

The fraud occurred when the tenant, who was renting a property from a company, received a message from a person claiming to be an employee of the firm while he was preparing to renew his lease.

The impersonator instructed the tenant to transfer the rent to a specified bank account. Believing the instructions had come from an authorised representative of the property company, the tenant transferred Dh42,500.

He later discovered that the account did not belong to the company and realised that he had fallen victim to a scam. The incident led to a criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings, in which the person linked to the fraudulent transaction was convicted.

Following the criminal case, the victim approached the civil court seeking to recover the money he had lost.

He filed a lawsuit before the Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court, demanding that the defendant repay the full Dh42,500.

The tenant also sought Dh10,000 in compensation for the material, moral and psychological damage he said he had suffered as a result of the fraud. He further requested legal interest of 10 per cent from the date the lawsuit was filed until the amount was paid.

In considering the civil claim, the court relied on findings established during the earlier criminal proceedings.

Under the principle governing the relationship between criminal and civil judgments, findings conclusively established by a criminal court concerning the act underlying both proceedings cannot be reconsidered by the civil court.

The civil court therefore ordered the defendant to return the Dh42,500 transferred by the tenant.

The case highlights the risks of acting on payment instructions received through messages without independently verifying the recipient's bank details with the landlord or property management company.

The Dubai Civil Court has ordered the seller of a luxury vehicle to refund Dh765,000 to the purchaser after finding that key details of the vehicle had been misrepresented. The court also rescinded the sales contract and awarded the purchaser Dh30,000 in compensation.

The case arose after the purchaser bought the luxury vehicle for Dh765,000 based on specifications and other details stated in the sales contract. However, after completing the transaction and having the vehicle inspected by the relevant authorities, he discovered discrepancies in its country of manufacture and model year.

The purchaser subsequently approached the court and requested the appointment of a specialised expert to examine the vehicle and verify its technical and registration details.

The expert’s report found substantial differences in the vehicle’s technical identity. The inspection revealed that its model year differed from the year stated in the contract, while its registration data and specifications also showed a different country of manufacture.

An electronic inspection further indicated that the vehicle was technically older than represented. The electronic system recorded a different model year from that stated in the sales agreement.

The report concluded that the discrepancies involving the chassis number, the technical generation of the electronic systems and the model year constituted a fundamental conflict with the terms of the contract. It said the discrepancy could not be rectified technically because it affected the essential identity and characteristics of the vehicle.

The purchaser filed a lawsuit seeking rescission of the contract, repayment of the full purchase price and compensation for the damages he had suffered. The seller, meanwhile, sought dismissal of the case, arguing that it had been brought against a party without proper legal standing.

The court held that proof of a hidden and fundamental defect, together with the vehicle’s failure to conform to the agreed specifications, entitled the purchaser to rescind the sale and recover the amount paid.

It said it was satisfied with the findings of the expert report and considered the differences between the vehicle’s actual condition and the specifications stated in the contract to constitute a fundamental defect. The court further found that the seller had breached his contractual obligations.

The court therefore rescinded the sales contract and ordered the seller to return Dh765,000 to the purchaser and pay Dh30,000 in compensation for the damages. He was also ordered to bear the court fees and expenses and pay Dh1,000 in attorney fees.

The Dubai Civil Court has ordered an Arab national to repay Dh1.35 million in investment capital to a business partner, rejecting his argument that previous profit payments had settled the financial obligation.

According to court records, the plaintiff had handed over Dh1.35 million to the defendant several years ago under a commercial agreement. The funds were intended to be invested in a car trading business in Dubai, which initially generated returns for the investor.

The business relationship later deteriorated, however, with the defendant failing to return the original capital despite repeated demands from the investor. The plaintiff subsequently filed a civil case seeking recovery of the Dh1.35 million.

During the proceedings, the defendant's lawyer argued that the claim should be dismissed because the investor had already received Dh1.1 million in profits and dividends during the period of the business relationship. The defence maintained that these payments should be taken into account when determining whether any amount remained payable.

The court rejected that argument, finding that profits distributed during the investment period were separate from the original capital. The payment of commercial returns did not remove the defendant's obligation to return the principal amount to the investor when it became due.

The court also considered WhatsApp messages exchanged between the two parties as evidence in the case. The messages established that the Dh1.35 million had been provided as investment capital and was not intended to become the defendant's permanent property.

Based on the evidence, the court ordered the defendant to repay the full Dh1.35 million principal to the plaintiff. It also ordered him to pay legal interest at an annual rate of 5 per cent, calculated from the date the lawsuit was filed until the amount is paid in full. The defendant was further ordered to bear the litigation costs.

The Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of First Instance has ordered a parent to pay Dh197,680 to a private school for unpaid tuition fees incurred after enrolling his children.

The court also held a woman jointly liable for Dh142,800, the value of a cheque issued from her bank account that could not be cashed. The two were further ordered to jointly pay Dh3,000 in compensation, in addition to court costs and Dh200 in legal fees.

According to court records, the parent enrolled his children at the private school but failed to settle the tuition fees. He later provided the school with a cheque covering part of the outstanding amount.

Although the cheque was drawn on the woman’s bank account, it could not be honoured because it had been prepared in a manner that prevented payment.

The published ruling referred to an earlier criminal case related to the cheque but did not disclose the penalty imposed or explain the woman’s relationship with the parent.

The school filed a civil case seeking Dh197,680 from the parent for the unpaid fees. It also asked the court to hold the woman jointly responsible for Dh142,800 and sought Dh15,000 in compensation.

To support its claim, the school submitted invoices and account statements showing the outstanding fees, a copy of the cheque, evidence that it had been returned unpaid and a copy of the related criminal judgment.

The woman argued that the case against her should be dismissed because she had no involvement in the underlying dispute. The court rejected her argument, finding that the cheque had been issued from her bank account in favour of the school.

The court also noted that she had not produced evidence showing that the amount had been paid or that she was no longer liable for it.

The parent appeared before the court but failed to successfully challenge the school’s evidence. He also did not provide proof that the outstanding tuition fees had been settled.

The court therefore ordered him to pay Dh197,680 to the school. It held the woman jointly liable with him for Dh142,800, corresponding to the value of the returned cheque.

The pair were also ordered to jointly pay Dh3,000 in compensation, together with court expenses and Dh200 in legal fees. The court rejected the school’s remaining claims.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered a man to pay a woman Dh48,700 and a further Dh10,000 in compensation after finding that he had led her to believe he intended to marry her and obtained money from her over a period of time.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Claims Court heard that the man received cash and bank transfers from the woman after promising to repay the money once his financial circumstances improved and his banking transactions were completed.

The woman filed a civil case seeking Dh48,800, which she said represented the outstanding debt, along with Dh20,000 in compensation for material, moral and psychological harm allegedly caused by the man's deception, bad-faith delay and repeated failure to repay the money.

She also sought annual interest of 5 per cent from the date the case was filed until the amount was fully settled, as well as court costs and lawyers' fees.

After reviewing the evidence, the court ordered the man to pay Dh48,700 to the woman, together with Dh10,000 in compensation.

A woman has been ordered to pay a man Dh5,000 in compensation after insulting and threatening him through WhatsApp, bringing the total financial penalties against her to Dh15,000.

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family, Civil and Administrative Claims awarded the man compensation for the financial and psychological harm he suffered as a result of the messages.

The ruling followed an earlier criminal judgment in which the woman was fined Dh10,000 over the same conduct. She was also barred from accessing the information network for three months, while her phone number and WhatsApp account were ordered cancelled.

The man had sought Dh20,000 in compensation, along with legal interest of 12 per cent from the date of filing his claim until payment, as well as court fees and expenses.

He told the court that the woman had insulted and threatened him through WhatsApp and submitted the criminal judgment as evidence. The defendant did not attend the civil proceedings.

The court said the criminal ruling had established that the woman committed the acts underlying both the criminal and civil cases, including insulting and threatening the man through an information technology programme.

It found that the man had suffered material losses, including expenses incurred in reporting the matter to police and the Public Prosecution, as well as moral harm in the form of distress and sadness.

The court ordered the woman to pay Dh5,000 in material and moral damages, in addition to the fees and expenses of the civil case.

The Dubai Civil Court has ordered three men to jointly pay Dh2.09 million after finding that they breached a settlement agreement requiring them to make the payment in exchange for an entity withdrawing a criminal complaint.

The court also ordered the defendants to pay 5% legal interest on the amount from the date the lawsuit was filed until full payment.

The case arose after an entity filed a criminal complaint against the first defendant, accusing him of fraud, breach of trust and forgery.

During the proceedings, the parties entered into negotiations that resulted in a settlement agreement in April 2026. Under the agreement, the three defendants jointly undertook to pay Dh2.09 million by a cheque drawn on Emirates NBD.

In return, the claimant agreed to waive the complaint, the report and the criminal case against the first defendant.

The court found that the claimant had fulfilled its obligation by submitting the waiver to the Public Prosecution on the same day the settlement was concluded. The waiver was subsequently attached to the criminal case file and accepted.

The defendants, however, neither handed over the original cheque nor paid the agreed amount despite repeated demands from the claimant.

When the claimant sought delivery of the original cheque, it was told that the cheque or related amount had been deposited in the criminal case file. The claimant then approached the Public Prosecution seeking to recover the amount or have it released for payment.

The prosecution informed the claimant that the deposited amount was not held for its benefit, but constituted a financial guarantee connected with procedures to lift a travel ban imposed on the first defendant.

The defendants challenged the jurisdiction of the Dubai courts and asked for the dispute to be referred to the Rental Dispute Settlement Centre. They also sought a stay of the civil proceedings until the criminal case was finally decided.

The court rejected both arguments, finding that the dispute did not concern a lease contract or any rental-related right or obligation. Instead, it arose from an independent settlement agreement containing a specific financial obligation.

The court also held that deciding the civil claim did not depend on the outcome of the criminal proceedings because the defendants' payment obligation arose directly from the settlement agreement.

In its ruling, the court stressed that a settlement agreement is binding on the parties once concluded. The documents showed that the claimant had carried out its obligation by submitting the agreed waiver, while there was no evidence that the defendants had fulfilled their corresponding obligation to pay Dh2.09 million or deliver the agreed cheque.

The court therefore found that the defendants had breached their contractual undertaking and ordered them jointly to pay the Dh2.09 million, together with 5% legal interest from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a woman to pay her sister Dh340,000 after ruling that she had failed to repay part of a loan received from her.

The court also ordered the defendant to pay Dh20,000 in compensation for the losses suffered by her sister, in addition to court fees and expenses.

The plaintiff had filed a case seeking repayment of Dh340,000, representing the outstanding balance of a larger loan, together with legal and late-payment interest at 9% from the date of filing the case. She also sought Dh200,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, with 5% interest from the date the judgment became final until full payment.

According to the case documents, the plaintiff had lent her sister Dh540,000 in two transfers. The first amounted to Dh500,000, followed by a further transfer of Dh40,000. The defendant subsequently repaid Dh200,000, leaving Dh340,000 outstanding.

The plaintiff told the court that her sister had acknowledged the debt in communications between them and had expressed a willingness to issue a guarantee cheque and repay the outstanding amount in instalments.

The defendant had also proposed resolving the dispute by giving up her share of an inheritance in favour of her sister.

The court found that the defendant had acknowledged receiving the money and that this was supported by her subsequent conduct, including the issuance of a manager’s cheque as security for the outstanding debt.

When questioned about the purpose of the cheque, the defendant said it had been issued to settle the dispute, the court found.

The court therefore concluded that the outstanding debt had been established and ordered the defendant to pay Dh340,000 to her sister.

It also awarded Dh20,000 in compensation for the loss of benefit from the unpaid amount and the material and moral harm suffered by the plaintiff. The defendant was further ordered to bear all court fees and expenses.