He accused them of making false statements to evade fees

Support the refusal of a lawyer’s lawsuit claiming compensation from his client and her son

Abu Dhabi Cassation upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeal.

■ archive

The Court of Cassation in Abu Dhabi upheld the Court of Appeal ruling rejecting a lawsuit for compensation for material and moral damages filed by a lawyer against her client and her son, accusing them of intentionally reporting falsely against him of facts that, if true, he would have been legally punished, in order to pressure him to waive the value of the fees owed by them.

The court ordered - in a counseling room - not to accept the appeal, and obliged the appellant to pay the fees and expenses, along with confiscating the insurance.

In the details, a lawyer filed a lawsuit against his client and her son, seeking the judiciary to oblige them to pay him compensation estimated by the court for the material and moral damages caused to him as a result of their intention to report falsely against him, based on the evidence that the two defendants had submitted to the prosecution a request to open a report against him they claim In it, he called the defendant late at night, threatening her that if she and her son did not retract the complaint against him, he would withdraw from the cases he was charged with, and he would cause them to lose in all cases.

The plaintiff indicated in his statements that on the day after the son of his client opened a report at the police station, he was summoned, interrogated and sponsored for his passport, and then the defendant was summoned to the police department to take her statements, as the investigations proved that she was the one who called him, and that was in the afternoon, and he spoke With her respectfully, he asked her about the reason for the complaint filed against the law firm in which he works, and she indicated that she was not aware of that, but he was surprised that she had colluded with her son and deliberately reported an incorrect incident to pressure him to waive his fees.

The lawyer pointed out that the Public Prosecution issued a decision to save the report and hand it over to his passport, but the defendants grievance against the preservation decision, and he was unable to receive his passport until the grievance was rejected, confirming that he was damaged as a result of the false report, and from seizing his passport for more than a month, And preventing him from traveling, and losing an amount of 400,000 dirhams to him, in addition to inflicting psychological harm and defaming his reputation.

For its part, a court of first instance ruled to reject the case while obliging those who instituted it to pay the expenses, and the court of first instance established its judiciary on the basis that resorting to the judiciary to defend the right protected by law is considered one of the legitimate public rights that are proven for all.

The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeal, and in his memorandum mourned the appealed ruling on the error in the application of the law and the failure to cause and corruption in the reasoning, as it is proven that the reported incident from the appellant is not correct, so the appellant sent an email to the office before The report is filed, confirming the cancellation of dealing with the office and its handing over of the case files within two days, and that it is inconceivable that the appellant would then contact the first appellant and threaten her to withdraw from the cases he was charged with.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the case of the case is limited to the claim of material and moral compensation for damage that the appellant claims to have suffered as a result of the appellant reporting him to the threat and harassment, and this is an incident that the appellant did not deny, as the appellant disputes that the appellant would call her at night, but that was in the middle of the day. It gives the nature of the legitimacy of the communication submitted by the appellant against it, and the court decided to accept the appeal in form, and in the matter to reject the appeal, uphold the appealed judgment, and obligate the appellant to pay fees, expenses and attorney fees.

This court did not receive the acceptance of the lawyer (the plaintiff), so he appealed against him in cassation, while the Court of Cassation confirmed that the determination of the proof of intent and the corner of the infringement and the intent to harm or deny the litigant is from the real issues that the trial court is independent of extracting without being punished for it, and the court ruled not to accept the appeal, And required the appellant fee and expenses with confiscation of insurance.

The plaintiff confirmed the loss of an amount estimated at 400,000 dirhams due to the false report.

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