Dubai Court upholds ownership in luxury car dispute over alleged temporary registration

Dubai: A Dubai court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a wealthy Arab businessman seeking to recover a luxury Bentley car and a distinctive number plate, ruling that the officially registered ownership remains legally binding despite claims that the registration was intended to be temporary.

The Dubai Civil Court, sitting as a court of first instance, rejected the man’s request to reclaim a Bentley GT Speed Coupe and a premium licence plate, or to be compensated for their value, which he said exceeded Dh800,000. He had also sought damages for psychological and moral harm.

According to Emarat Al Youm, the claimant had purchased a luxury villa and its contents, including the disputed vehicle and licence plate, using his own funds. 

He said he intended the car as a gift for his daughter but, because she did not yet hold residency, the vehicle was registered in the name of her friend on what he described as a temporary and nominal basis, without any genuine intention to transfer ownership.

The dispute arose after the friend refused to return the car or relinquish ownership, relying instead on an officially documented contract showing the vehicle registered in his name. 

The businessman subsequently turned to the courts, arguing that the registration concealed a “hidden agreement” that contradicted the apparent legal position.

In support of his case, the claimant submitted the property sale contract, photographs of the vehicle and its number plate, and WhatsApp messages exchanged between his daughter and the defendant, which he said demonstrated that the registration was merely formal and that the defendant had no legitimate claim to the car.

The court, however, ruled that the essence of the dispute concerned an allegation of relative simulation against an officially registered ownership document issued by the Roads and Transport Authority, a matter governed by strict evidentiary rules under civil law and established court precedents.

In its reasoning, the court said the law presumes that the apparent contract is valid and enforceable, and that a concealed agreement can only be recognised if proven through written evidence or its legal equivalent, particularly where substantial financial rights are involved. The burden of proof, it said, rests with the party alleging simulation.

After examining the documents, the court found that while the property sale contract confirmed the claimant’s financial contribution, it did not establish the existence of any hidden agreement with the defendant regarding the vehicle’s registration. 

It also noted inconsistencies between the licence plate number cited in the property contract and the one claimed in the lawsuit, which weakened the evidential value of the claimant’s argument.

As for the WhatsApp correspondence, the court held that such messages did not amount to a “counter-document” capable of undermining an officially registered ownership deed, describing them instead as weak circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove simulation in a transaction involving high-value assets.

The court also rejected the argument that a moral or personal relationship justified the absence of a written agreement, stating that friendship alone does not constitute a moral impediment excusing the failure to document financial rights of such magnitude.

Concluding that the registered ownership in the defendant’s name constituted a valid legal basis for possession of the vehicle, the court dismissed all claims for recovery and compensation, including those relating to psychological and moral harm, finding no wrongful act. The claimant was ordered to pay court fees and expenses.