The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance rejected a lawsuit filed by the owner of an establishment against his legal adviser, which required him to pay him 201,801 dirhams, which it receives against case expenses and personal loan, and the court compelled the plaintiff. pay the expenses.
In the details, the owner of an establishment filed a lawsuit against a lawyer, demanding that he pay him 201 801 dirhams, indicating that the defendant works for him as a legal adviser, and for the work he handed over to him sums of money as expenses. for legal cases and proceedings, but he was surprised after the defendant’s work was finished, by not spending the money allocated to it.
During the consideration of the case, the plaintiff ruled that the amount claimed was 160,000 dirhams, as attorney’s fees, and the amount of 40,000 dirhams was an advance, while the defendant ruled that the words decided by the plaintiff were incorrect.
During the report of the arithmetic expert delegated by the court showed that the defendant joined the institution as a legal adviser until his service ended and he joined a law firm, and the case papers were void of agreements or contracts between the plaintiff and the defendant . in addition to the employment contract, and the value of the sums amounted to Transferred from the plaintiff’s accounts to the defendant is an amount of 161 801 dirhams, in addition to the amount of 40 thousand dirhams in the value of a bank check, and the papers were without any document stating that the check was against a personal loan, while the defendant stated that those amounts were advisory fees and legal services that were provided to the plaintiff, his father and his brother and his uncle, and the case papers were blank. of official or customary correspondence stating that the fees for those services have been agreed.
The defendant took the supplementary oath, during which he confirmed that the sums given to him by the plaintiff were not for the purpose of paying them to other parties, and that the amount specified in the check amounting to 40 thousand dirhams was not an advance. of the plaintiff, and that all these sums were delivered to him in return for services and works which he performed at the direction and request of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff delivered it to him on this basis, and not according to what he asserts .
In the verdict, the court stated that the case papers were without correspondence or written directives stating that the plaintiff directed the defendant to the expense of the amounts subject to the transfers, as well as any document stating that the check was against a personal loan. , and that the defendant provided legal services to the plaintiff, his father and his brother During his period of employment, the latter did not provide evidence that he or any of his family members paid the value of the fees or in exchange for those services to the defendant, and those amounts were paid to the defendant for the fees of consultation and legal services provided to the plaintiff and his family members.
The court decided to dismiss the case, and ordered the plaintiff to pay the costs.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments with Google news