Dubai court dismisses bid to clear liability in Dh4.5m dispute

Dubai: A Dubai civil court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a new civil claim seeking to clear a debtor of liability for a bank transfer worth about Dh4.5 million, after finding that the dispute had already been conclusively settled by a final court judgment.

The Dubai Court of First Instance said reintroducing the same dispute under a different legal framing does not weaken the binding force of a final ruling, nor does it allow renewed litigation once a matter has been definitively resolved.

According to Emarat Al Youm, the claimant filed the case seeking a declaration that he was no longer liable for €1.065 million, transferred in 2016 from the account of one of the defendants to his account at a local bank. He argued that the amount had already been ruled on in earlier proceedings against a separate commercial entity, and also sought substantial compensation for alleged harm caused by repeated legal action over the same debt.

The claimant said the transfer stemmed from a long-standing investment relationship involving the defendants’ late father and a jewellery trading company, during which large sums in dollars and euros were invested. As the business relationship deteriorated, the matter developed into a complex, multi-stage legal dispute.

A review of the litigation history showed that the disputed transfers had already been examined in several civil and commercial cases. Most notably, a partial commercial judgment ordered the claimant to repay €1.065 million, or its equivalent in UAE dirhams, along with legal interest. That ruling was upheld on appeal and later confirmed by the Court of Cassation, making it final and unchallengeable.

Despite this, the claimant returned to court years later seeking a declaration of “clearance of liability”, effectively attempting to reopen the dispute through a different legal route.

In its reasoning, the court stressed that judgments which acquire the authority of res judicata are binding on the matters they decide and cannot be revisited, even if new arguments, evidence or alternative legal characterisations are presented, as long as the parties, subject matter and cause remain the same.

The court added that substance, not terminology, determines the nature of a claim. A request for “clearance of liability”, it said, was essentially directed at the same debt already confirmed by a final judgment. Once liability is conclusively established, the presumption of a clear financial position no longer applies and cannot be revived through fresh proceedings.

The court further noted that the authority of final judgments serves to protect legal certainty, ensure the orderly administration of justice and prevent courts from becoming forums for repeated litigation of the same disputes.

As for the compensation claim, the court found no legal fault capable of giving rise to civil liability, ruling that enforcing a right confirmed by a final judgment does not amount to wrongdoing and does not justify compensation.

The case was therefore dismissed, with the claimant ordered to pay court fees and costs.