The “veto” supported the lack of eligibility for the late fees

Inaction, a lawyer costs him 200,000 dirhams as compensation for his client

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi upheld two judgments of the Court of Appeal, which ruled to compensate a woman whose lawyer was indolent from registering a lawsuit within the legal time specified for her, at an amount of 200,000 dirhams, while the second ruling ruled that the lawyer was not entitled to the late fees, and the two appeals were rejected, on the basis that the deduction of the error requiring liability, and its percentage The perpetrator, the harm resulting from it, the extent of the victim’s participation in the error, and the assessment of compensation are matters that are subject to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

In the details, a first instance ruling, upheld by the ruling of the Court of Appeal, awarded a woman an amount of 200,000 dirhams in compensation for material and moral damages, as a result of her lawyer’s mistake and laxity in registering the case, which resulted in the judgment not being heard, and the ruling took into account the proportion of the contestant’s contribution to that error. , Which was represented in her failure to request the lawyer to file the case for about 20 days from the period during which the case was not heard.

The Court of Cassation clarified that the judgment assessed the compensation awarded by what it deemed appropriate and sufficient to redress the damages suffered by the contestant, taking into account its contribution to the mistake made by the lawyer, noting that the obituary on all the reasons for the appeal is merely an objective argument in the independent matter. In it the subject court, which may not be raised before the Court of Cassation.

In the corresponding appeal, the Court of Cassation indicated that the court of the matter has the authority to estimate the actual attorney’s fees, in light of the efforts made by the lawyer and the benefit that the client has received, and if the court extracts the reality in which it is convinced or established it is sufficient to bear it, then it is not yet binding That is by following up the opponents in their arguments.

The first ruling, supported by the judgment of the Court of Appeal, had ruled to reject the request of the "lawyer" to bind his "client" challenged against the first to the late fees agreed upon, on the basis that the woman no longer has any benefit from the case in which the lawyer is appointed, and that she ultimately lost her due to his lax in Filing the case, until it was decided not to hear the passage of time, despite the fact that it was appointed to him during the validity of the period and before its expiration.

The Court of Cassation pointed out that the first ruling concluded in its court of refusal to direct the decisive oath of the two opponents entered in the lawsuit by the lawyer, as the latter did not request any substantive requests facing them, and it was arranged that the application for admission was rejected, and the refusal was supported by the judgment of the Appeal Court, based on the fault of the appellant. That he, as a lawyer and is aware of the requirements of the law in relation to the lawsuit in which he was appointed, bears a large portion of the reason according to which the judgment was made not to hear the case due to the passage of time, and his delay in instituting it until the legal time for hearing it passed, and the court ruled not to accept the two appeals, and obligated each appellant to pay fees and expenses for his appeal And it ordered the confiscation of the insurance in them, and the set-off between the two parties for attorneys ’fees.

Follow our latest local and sports news, and the latest political and economic developments via Google news