A commercial agent demands 121 thousand dirhams in compensation for a malicious report

The Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal upheld a ruling of the Court of First Instance rejecting a compensation claim filed by a commercial establishment agent against the owner of the establishment, in which he demanded that the latter pay him 121,868 dirhams in compensation for a malicious complaint he submitted against him.

In the details, the agent of a commercial establishment filed a lawsuit against the owner of the establishment, in which he demanded that he be obligated to pay him an amount of 121,868 dirhams, as compensation for the material and moral damages he sustained, as a result of the defendant submitting a false and malicious communication against him, and obligating the defendant to pay him The legal interest is 12% from the date of issuing the judgment, until full payment, and obligating him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney’s fees. The Court of First Instance decided to reject the case, and obligated the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

The plaintiff appealed the judgment, calling on the judgment a violation of the evidence established in the papers, and the statements contained therein by the appellee clarifying his certain knowledge, and his intention to harm the appellant by submitting a criminal report against him, knowing that the statements on which he relied were incorrect, indicating that he did not refuse to hand over the commercial establishments. And the two agencies after the end of the agency contract for the one who claimed ownership, and he did not take possession of the equipment, cars, furniture and appliances.

The appellant asserted that the respondent deliberately misled and changed the facts in the ownership of the money and movables allegedly squandered, and the respondent knew that all the properties of the institutions and agencies subject to the management and operation contract are the exclusive property of the appellant, and this is stipulated in the management and operation contract, and he requested to cancel the judgment and again obligate the respondent to pay He has an amount of 121,868 dirhams as a material compensation, as a precaution to delegate an expert to calculate the compensation for the damage.

While the respondent submitted a reply memorandum in which he affirmed the lack of maliciousness, the intent to harm the appellant, and the absence of the element of error, and thus the absence of the elements of tort responsibility, noting that the report of the arithmetic expert showed that the appellant was responsible for returning the institutions of the complainant (the respondent), and the appellant was acquitted for insufficiency The evidence, not the absence of the incident that is the subject of the criminal case, and the request to reject the appeal, support the appealed judgment, and obligate the appellant to pay fees, expenses, and attorney fees for the two levels of litigation.

In the rationale for its ruling, the court clarified that it is legally established that legal permissibility is inconsistent with the guarantee, so whoever legitimately uses his right does not guarantee the resulting harm, noting that the respondent submitted his penal notification using his right to litigation according to what is guaranteed to him by the law and the constitution, and did not Abuse of his aforementioned right, or deviation, with the aim of harming the appellant, or in violation of public order or morals, in such a way that he is not asked as a result of his use of his legitimate right according to the legally available means, is proven.

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