UAE

As Dubai advances its ambition to become one of the world’s top three economic cities, efficient dispute resolution is becoming an increasingly important pillar of the infrastructure that underpins business confidence, investment and growth.

The DIFC Courts Mediation Service Centre supports this objective by expanding the range of dispute resolution options available through the DIFC Courts. It offers businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals a confidential, cost-effective and practical route to settlement where mediation is appropriate.

Sharjah Misdemeanour Court is hearing a case against two individuals accused of endangering public health by selling Mounjaro injections — used for diabetes and weight-loss treatment —without the required licences, alongside a third defendant charged with carrying out financial activities without authorisation.

According to case details, police identified a social media account advertising the sale of Mounjaro injections through online promotions, despite the medicine being restricted to prescription-only use. Authorities subsequently launched an investigation and traced the account, leading to the arrest of two suspects allegedly involved in the illegal sale of medicines.

Further inquiries resulted in the arrest of a third individual accused of conducting money transfer operations connected to the activity without obtaining the necessary legal licence.

During court proceedings, prosecutors charged the first two defendants with practising pharmacy services without a licence and endangering lives by distributing unapproved medications. The third defendant faces charges related to unlicensed financial activity.

All three defendants denied the allegations. The court has adjourned the case and will issue its verdict at a later date.

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi has ruled that a woman’s independent income or personal assets, by themselves, do not prevent her from receiving financial compensation following divorce, upholding a lower court decision under the emirate’s civil family law framework.

The court rejected an appeal by a former husband who argued that his ex-wife’s salary and financial independence meant she was not entitled to a court-ordered post-divorce financial award. The couple, who were foreign nationals, had their civil marriage dissolved by the Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court, after which the former wife sought financial compensation arising from the breakdown of the marriage.

In his challenge, the former husband maintained that his ex-wife was financially self-sufficient and therefore excluded from any entitlement to further payment. The court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that income alone is not a decisive factor in determining post-divorce financial claims.

It held that such matters must be assessed holistically, taking into account multiple considerations, including the length of the marriage, the financial position of both parties, their respective obligations, and any disparity in income or standard of living following separation.

The court also noted that lower courts were entitled to rely on expert financial reports when assessing the economic circumstances of both spouses and the financial impact of the divorce.

It further ruled that the award granted at first instance fell within the discretionary powers of the lower court, and that the appeal largely sought to re-examine the evidence rather than establish a legal error warranting reversal.

Reaffirming the principle behind its decision, the court clarified that financial independence does not automatically negate a claim for post-divorce compensation. A working spouse may still be entitled to financial relief where the overall circumstances show imbalance or hardship arising from the end of the marriage.

The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original ruling upheld.

The Commercial Court in Dubai has ordered a company to pay $588,000 (Dh2.15 million) to a chemical supplier, along with 5 per cent annual interest from October 2023 until full settlement, in addition to court fees, expenses and legal costs.

The ruling came after the court found that the supplier had fulfilled its contractual obligations by shipping and delivering the agreed chemical materials, but had not received the full payment.

The dispute dates back to a lawsuit filed by the supplier against two companies, seeking the recovery of outstanding dues amounting to $588,000. The amount represented the balance payable for chemical supplies shipped to an Arab country under purchase orders worth a total of $925,920.

Court records showed that one of the companies had issued a written guarantee before the commercial relationship began, acknowledging responsibility for the obligations of the other company and undertaking to settle any unpaid invoices if it failed to do so.

The supplier maintained that it had delivered the agreed materials and issued all related invoices in line with the contract.

During the proceedings, the representative of one of the companies challenged the Dubai court’s international jurisdiction and argued that the supplied goods were defective and had later been destroyed.

To examine the claims, the court appointed an expert, whose report confirmed that the supplier had fully performed its obligations. The report found that the chemical materials were shipped, delivered and received without any objection at the time of delivery.

It also established that there had been correspondence between the parties, including explicit acknowledgements of the debt and partial payments. According to the report, the total value of supplies stood at $925,920, of which $337,858 had been paid, leaving an outstanding balance of $588,062.

The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, holding that part of the contract had been executed in Dubai since the goods were shipped from the emirate to a destination outside the UAE, giving the UAE courts authority to hear the matter.

It also dismissed the claim that the goods did not meet specifications, noting that the shipments had been accepted without objection in 2023, while the destruction reports submitted as evidence were prepared nearly two years later, undermining the allegation of defects at the time of delivery.

At the same time, the court ruled that there was no legal standing against the first company after it was established that it had been struck off and its commercial registration had been cancelled before the lawsuit was filed, meaning it no longer had legal existence at the time of the proceedings.

A Sharjah misdemeanour court has sentenced an Asian worker to one month in prison for assaulting his supervisor during a dispute over a salary increase and annual leave, with the conviction later upheld on appeal.

According to court records reported by Al Khaleej, the supervisor lodged a complaint accusing the employee of assault and threats after being told the company could not approve his pay rise request due to prevailing business conditions and asked him to defer it. The worker had also requested annual leave.

The supervisor told the court that the employee became enraged after both requests were turned down and physically attacked him, leaving him with injuries to his head and face.

After examining the case, the Sharjah Misdemeanour Court handed down a one-month jail term. The worker challenged the ruling, but the appellate court rejected the appeal and upheld the original sentence.

An Al Ain Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a woman to pay Dh10,000 in compensation to a man for material and moral damages after she was found guilty of insulting him via a phone message. The court, however, rejected the plaintiff’s claim for Dh100,000 in compensation.

The case stemmed from a lawsuit filed by a man who sought Dh100,000 in damages, arguing that he had suffered material, moral and emotional harm as a result of the insult sent to him by the defendant. He relied on a final criminal judgment that had already convicted the woman, along with a certificate from the Al Ain Appeals Prosecution confirming that the ruling had not been challenged by cassation and had therefore become final.

Court documents showed that the defendant denied the allegations and requested that the case be dismissed. She submitted a memorandum of defence along with copies of phone correspondence and other judicial rulings, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims were inaccurate. The court proceeded with the case after both parties had completed their submissions and exchanged memoranda.

In its ruling, the court held that the final criminal judgment had already established that the woman had committed the act of insult. It noted that such a judgment carries binding authority before the civil court, preventing it from re-examining the established facts of the offence. As a result, the court found that the element of fault had been legally proven against the defendant.

While acknowledging the established liability, the court assessed the extent of damages and awarded Dh10,000 in compensation, significantly lower than the amount sought by the plaintiff. The remainder of the claim was dismissed.

The Sharjah Misdemeanour Court is hearing a case involving the alleged assault of an Asian resident by his roommate following a dispute over noise inside their shared accommodation.

According to court proceedings, the incident occurred while the complainant was attempting to rest but was unable to do so because of the loud noise allegedly made by his roommate late at night.

The complainant said he approached his roommate and asked him to lower the noise and allow him to sleep. The situation, however, escalated, with the accused allegedly attacking him with a chair in front of several witnesses inside the accommodation.

The victim sustained injuries to his head and other parts of his body, prompting him to file a complaint and pursue legal action.

When questioned before the court on charges of assault and causing bodily harm, the accused denied the allegations, claiming the incident was merely a verbal altercation.

The court has adjourned the case to a later date and ordered the summoning of witnesses to establish the circumstances surrounding the incident.

An Abu Dhabi Labour Court has ordered a company to pay an employee Dh28,220 in compensation for overtime and work carried out on official holidays.

According to court records, the employee filed a case seeking payment for overtime and weekend holiday work over a five-month period. He argued that he had regularly worked beyond normal hours and was not compensated in accordance with labour laws.

The court appointed an expert to review the claim. The report found that the employee had worked 15 hours a day, along with an additional four overtime hours, over a total of 1,258 working days. However, the expert noted there were no formal documents showing that the company had assigned him extra duties, despite records confirming the extended hours.

Under UAE labour law, an employer may only require an employee to work more than two overtime hours a day under specific conditions.

The expert further found that the employee had worked on 102 official holiday days. Under the law, employees working on holidays are entitled either to a compensatory day off or payment for that day’s wage plus 50 per cent of their basic salary.

In its ruling, the court held that the employee was entitled to Dh17,690 for overtime work. It also found that he had worked on 100 holiday days without formal assignment and was therefore entitled to Dh10,530.

The total compensation awarded amounted to Dh28,220.

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family, Civil and Administrative Cases has rejected a civil lawsuit seeking Dh138,525 in compensation for alleged electronic fraud, ruling that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim.

The case was filed by a man who alleged that the defendant had accessed his bank account through a fake link and unlawfully withdrawn Dh138,525, causing him financial and psychological harm.

According to court records, the incident had earlier been addressed in a criminal case, where the Public Prosecution for Financial Crimes convicted the defendant of fraud and imposed a fine of Dh3,000.

Relying on that criminal judgment, the plaintiff approached the civil court seeking repayment of the alleged stolen amount, along with Dh15,000 in compensation for damages.

However, the civil court found that the documents submitted were insufficient to establish the value of the losses claimed. The court noted that the plaintiff had primarily relied on investigation and inquiry reports and had not provided independent proof of the financial damage incurred.

In its ruling, the court stated that the submitted documents did not adequately substantiate the amount claimed for reimbursement, leading it to dismiss the case.