Abu Dhabi Court rejected the case

A lawyer demands a government agency of 300,000 dirhams in debt collection fees

The Abu Dhabi Court obligated the lawyer to pay the fees and expenses of the case.

archival

The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims rejected a lawyer’s claim that demanded a government entity to pay him 300,000 dirhams, fees for debt collection services he had made in its favour, and the court obligated the plaintiff to pay the fees and expenses of the case.

In the details, a lawyer demanded to oblige a government agency to pay him 300,000 dirhams, noting that according to a service agreement and follow-up debt collection between him and the defendant to collect bad debts from its clients, in return for 50,000 dirhams per month paid every three months, and the defendant may terminate the agreement in Any time with a written notice of 15 days before the expiry of the period, and the plaintiff negotiates with the defaulting clients in his office, presents a settlement with them, makes phone calls and sets the date of payment, and many clients have paid the bad debts.

The lawyer indicated that the defendant sent a group of clients to collect their debts, after the end of the first three months, which is a renewal for a second period, and the work plan was made by him and he started his work, and the defendant did not terminate the agreement and extended for the third period, and the plaintiff kept negotiating with clients and repaid the plaintiff. She owes the fees for the first period, and she owes her fees for the second and third periods, amounting to 300,000 dirhams.

While the report of the arithmetic expert delegated by the court confirmed that the plaintiff received the value of the contract for the first period, as for the second and third periods “in dispute”, what was revealed to the experience is a set of emails sent from the plaintiff to the defendant that includes a set of payment receipts for some The defaulters whose names are included in the list sent by the defendant to the plaintiff in the first period.

The report indicated that the defendant did not renew the agreement period, and accordingly, experience believes that the plaintiff completed the collection of debts that were included in the lists sent to him in the first period, and the defendant did not inform him of the renewal of the second period, and the collections that were made by the plaintiff were for the debts of the first period.

In the ruling, the court stated that the contract is the law of the contracting parties, and it may not be revoked or amended except with the agreement of the two parties, noting that what is established in the contract is the evidence of the case that it stipulates in its fourth clause that the term of the agreement is three months from the date of signing the contract and may be renewed for another period at the request of the first party (the defendant), and since that was the evidence from the papers that they were free of any document showing the renewal of the contract a second time by the defendant.

She added that the defendant did not inform the plaintiff of the renewal of the second period, and the court ruled to reject the case, while obligating the plaintiff to pay fees and expenses.

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