Key Cases
Key judicial milestones
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Commercial, and this marks my First judicial precedent, Abu Dhabi
Feb 2017 - May 2017
Client: The client belongs to a longstanding local family in the country. He was one of the partners involved in a major project in Abu Dhabi.
The opposing party consisted of the remaining partners, who were also his brothers and members of one of the royal families.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): the claim was to reject both appointing an expert and Judicial receivership, on an AED 390,000,000 project.
Description: Both parties had previously requested the appointment of an expert in a different, substantive case. They wanted a thorough financial audit and document review of their project because they suspected one of the brothers (the client) of theft, betrayal of trust, and financial misconduct. The expert's report, however, cleared the client of any wrongdoing, revealing that everything was in order. As a result, the case was dismissed.
After the dismissal of that case, the 3 partners (opponent) initiated another lawsuit to appoint an expert to determine the facts formally. We argued that the previous decision in the substantive lawsuit should set a precedent for this formal lawsuit. However, the court disagreed to appoint the expert, stating that the new expert wouldn't provide any new information since the same matter had already been addressed by the expert in the substantive case.
And what makes it a Judicial precedent, is that it was the first time to use subsumptive arguments in a substantive argument (a petition for determination of fact)
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Real Estate, and this marks my second judicial precedent, Dubai
Mar 2019 - Oct 2022
Client: The client is a major company under a government entity in Kuwait.
The opposing party was a prominent member of a local influential family.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): AED 120,000,000
Description: The large company was supposed to carry out real estate development for the benefit of this individual. The deal involved an upfront payment of AED 30 million and a deferred payment of AED 90 million, totalling AED 120 million. The legal challenge arose when the court of first instance issued a ruling, but the Court of Appeal altered the decision, arguing that completed buildings must be registered.
In response, we filed an appeal, contesting this appellate ruling because it failed to distinguish between completed buildings and subdivided real estate units. The Dubai Court of Cassation was hesitant to make a ruling in this matter, so they forwarded the entire case to the General Authority of the Dubai Court of Cassation.
This case sets a new precedent concerning the mandatory registration of real estate units, both completed and subdivided.
It set the precedent for the mandatory registration of both completed and incomplete real estate units, whether they are divided or undivided.
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Civil, Dubai
July 2019 - Feb 2021
Client: An American Indian individual and his wife.
The opposing parties include a major government telecommunications company, a large government bank, and seven individuals of various nationalities who are currently evading authorities.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): AED 2,400,000.
Description: Seven individuals managed to withdraw a total of AED 2.4 million from the client's bank account through ten bank transfers in less than an hour, which occurred at night. This unauthorized activity resulted in the embezzlement of funds from the client's account, leading them to report this criminal activity.
As a result of the criminal report, the seven individuals were subject to a final judgment.
The method of theft employed violated technical and professional standards. It involved obtaining a replacement SIM card without proper authorization from the number holder, followed by a series of successive transfers without any communication with the account holder.
This situation gave rise to a civil lawsuit, holding both the company and the bank jointly responsible for negligence and technical errors that contravened professional norms. Ultimately, a final judgment was obtained, compelling the company and the bank to cover the claim amount, the bank and the telecommunication company had to pay the full claim amount 3 hours after the enforcement order was issued, resulting that we had received double the claim amount to avoid any dire consequences or interruption of their operating businesses. This outcome prompted the UAE Central Bank and the Ministry of Communications to issue instructions implemented across the country to avoid such issues.
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Rental Dispute, Dubai
Mar 2020 - Sep 2020
Client: The client was a restaurant situated in one of Dubai's largest and most renowned malls.
The opposing party was a well-established company that owns and operates numerous malls across the country, including the one where the client's restaurant was located.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): The claim was to annul the lease contract, which amounted to AED 1,900,000 per year.
Description: During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the country decided to close all shopping malls, the restaurant faced significant financial losses. The legal framework governing tenant-landlord relationships in Dubai did not address situations where tenants sought to terminate contracts; it only covered such scenarios for landlords. This case highlights the distinction between the impossibility of enforcement and when the enforcement is excessively onerous. The restaurant incurred substantial losses during the period of the ban, which ultimately resulted in the impossibility of continuing the rental agreement, leading to its termination.
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Commercial, Dubai
Apr 2019 - Dec 2019
Client: The client hails from one of the Royal families in the UAE.
The opponent is a prosperous Arab businessman who is also a partner of the client.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): AED 14,000,000
Description: Disagreements arose between both parties regarding profit distribution and company management methods. This led the partner (opponent) to request a judicial receivership, aiming to restrict the client's involvement in company management. In response, we argued against the opponent's eligibility to request judicial receivership. We demonstrated that, in fact, the partner (opponent) owed the client money during the company's establishment phase because he hadn't paid his share of the capital. The Abu Dhabi Court rejected the receivership request and ordered the opponent to settle the outstanding amounts owed to my client from the time of the company's formation.
Criminal Litigation , Dubai
May 2022 - May 2022
Client: Five Russian businessmen
The opponent is the director of a major electronic technical bank in Dubai, along with a Japanese businessman.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): $3.8 million
Description: During a Bitcoin transfer worth $3.8 million at a Dubai digital bank, a Japanese businessman, the bank, and the clients each had a Trezor to complete the transfer.
While the transfer was underway and expected to take 10 hours due to its size, the bank manager left the room temporarily. He later informed everyone that he would complete the transaction in his office without their presence.
He took all three Trezors and promised to keep them in his personal safe.
Shortly after, the Japanese businessman discovered that his balance had dropped to zero. He accused my clients of switching the Trezor and transferring the entire amount to their personal account.
The bank manager and the Japanese businessman went to the police station to report the incident. This led to investigations and legal actions.
We submitted a detailed memorandum to the police and the Public Prosecution explaining the facts. We also shared this memorandum with Dubai police headquarters. My clients were eventually acquitted, and their Trezor was returned to them.
This incident prompted the government to enact a law regulating digital currencies and their trading, registration, and supervision in Dubai.
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Criminal – National security, Dubai
Jun 2021 - Jun 2022
Client: The client is an Indian-American with extensive global connections and is involved in the mining and iodine industry.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): AED 3 billion, but the main point was the national security matter, and the client paid AED 3,000,000 as professional fees only for my memo.
Description: The client was supposed to receive a shipment at one of the ports in the UAE, coming from Chile. The plan was for the shipment to be delivered to a neighboring country without entering UAE territory. However, authorities became aware that this shipment, owned by the company, posed a security threat to the country. It was alleged that a former director of the company had given these instructions, even though he no longer held a position of authority. The Dubai Criminal Court pressed charges based on a referral from the Public Prosecution. In our defense, we argued that this individual had no authority to issue such instructions, as he was a former director with no current involvement in the matter. As a result, acquittal rulings were issued in his favor at various stages of the legal proceedings.
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Labour Dispute
Sep 2015 - May 2018
Client: A company director, which is owned by a Saudi prince. This company specializes in communications technology within the Arab region.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): USD 1,560,050
Description: The client had a fixed-term contract with the company. However, he was terminated from his job one year before the contract was supposed to end. The reason given for his termination was that he hadn't met his targets, which we argued was not accurate. In fact, he had secured some of the largest contracts in the Middle East for the company. The discrepancy between the stated reason for termination and the actual performance led the court to rule in favor of the client. As a result, he received his full compensation and dues as determined by the court.
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Commercial, Dubai
Sep 2022 - Aug 2023
Client: The client is a well-known real estate developer in the country, having a long-standing history in the real estate industry.
The opponent, on the other hand, is an individual who bought an off-plan real estate unit from this developer.
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): AED 780,000.00
Description: Based on a settlement agreement between the client and a buyer of an off-plan unit, the developer transferred an amount that was meant to serve as compensation for the settlement. However, the developer transferred a slightly higher sum to account for currency fluctuations. As the transferred amount did not precisely match the figure specified in the settlement agreement, the opponent (buyer) filed a lawsuit, claiming that he did not receive the agreed-upon amount due to the discrepancy. Subsequently, he obtained an enforcement order against the developer, seeking twice the settlement amount.
In response, we filed an undeserved restitution lawsuit as a form of an unjust enrichment lawsuit, arguing that this action was unwarranted.
In the court of first instance ruling, the case was dismissed. However, in the subsequent appeal and cassation proceedings, it was determined that the buyer (opponent) should reimburse the developer (client) the full amount transferred to his bank account, rather than the sum presented in the enforcement order.
Dispute Resolution - Litigation \ Commercial , My third judicial precedent, Dubai
Jan 2021 - Nov 2023
Value (value of deal or disputed amount): Approx USD 5,000,000.
Description: The situation centers around a commercial relationship between the two disputing parties. Initially, the British court had jurisdiction because the commercial dealings occurred in the UK. The client secured a final judgment from the British court. Subsequently, the client filed a request with the Dubai enforcement judge to enforce the British court's ruling, as the opposing party resides in Dubai. An order was issued to apply the enforcement order to the British court's ruling.
The opposing party filed an appeal challenging the initial ruling and contested its enforcement. The Court of Appeal consolidated both appeals into one and made a decision to uphold the ruling procedurally but reject it substantively. They also declined to accept the other appeal. The opposing party then further appealed this decision to the Dubai Court of Cassation, which decided to overturn the previous ruling. The case was subsequently remitted to the Court of Appeal, to be reconsidered by a different panel of judges. In our defense, we raised two key points. Firstly, we contested the procedural validity of the appeal filed by the opposing party, as it was submitted after the legally specified deadline had passed. Secondly, we addressed the issue of enforcing a foreign judgment from Britain in the UAE, in accordance with the conditions outlined in the UAE Civil Procedure Law, which states:
1-The UAE lacks jurisdiction to handle this dispute because the commercial relationship and contract involved fall under the jurisdiction of British courts.
2-The judgment that needs enforcement in Dubai must meet the same criteria as it would in Britain. It should adhere to local law and public order. To demonstrate this, we've provided a translated copy of the British Civil Transactions Law, which illustrates that the conditions for enforcing such judgments in Britain don't violate UAE public order.
3-Both parties involved in the lawsuit were duly notified and properly represented in court.
4-The judgment is final and holds the weight of res judicata, as per English law.
5-There is no conflict between this judgment and any other rulings in the UAE.
Additionally, the principle of reciprocity supports this case. The United Kingdom enforced a ruling issued by Dubai courts in 2020 and also acknowledges the recognition of UAE court rulings within its jurisdiction.
The case was awaiting a decision from the Dubai Courts of Cassation.
Mr. Judge Abdul Rahman Murad Al Balushi, Director of the International Cooperation Department, made a request to His Excellency Mr. Tarish Al Mansouri, General Director of Dubai Courts. He suggested that, based on the bilateral agreement between the UAE and Britain regarding judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, and considering the absence of a mechanism for applying foreign judgments, British rulings should be applied in the UAE based on the principle of reciprocity. His Excellency referenced the same ruling we previously mentioned in our ongoing case before the Dubai courts. This ruling is considered a legal precedent and a guiding principle within the English legal system. His Excellency proposed establishing a reciprocity principle for implementing judgments between the two countries, allowing Dubai courts to enforce foreign judgments in accordance with the respective laws of both nations.
The verdict was issued in November 2023 and we've enforced the first foreign judgment from the English local courts in Dubai courts.