UAE top court revives businesswoman’s Dh3.8m profit dispute

Abu Dhabi: The Federal Supreme Court has overturned an appeal judgment that dismissed a lawsuit brought by a businesswoman against her partner, whom she accused of withholding her share of profits from a jointly owned company in which she holds a 51 per cent stake.

The top court ordered the case to be referred back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. According to court documents, the woman filed a claim seeking the appointment of a corporate expert to review and settle accounts between the partners and to calculate her alleged dues. She said she owns 51 per cent of the company, while the defendant, who serves as its manager, had withheld company records and failed to pay her share of profits.

In response, the partner and the company filed a counterclaim requesting the appointment of an expert to prove that the claimant had not paid her share of the capital and to assess losses allegedly incurred, including her share of those losses, Emarat Al Youm reported.

After joining the two cases, the court appointed an accounting expert who submitted a report. The claimant later amended her requests, seeking joint and several payments of Dh3.82 million plus 9 per cent annual interest, and a further Dh200,000 in compensation from her partner.

The court of first instance dismissed the case as premature, a decision upheld on appeal.

The plaintiff then challenged the ruling before the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that her right of defence had been undermined after the lower court excluded the expert’s report on the grounds that it was based on unsound foundations. She said the Court of Appeal failed to respond to her request for the appointment of a new expert or expert panel under the Evidence Law in civil and commercial transactions.

The Federal Supreme Court upheld her appeal, citing Article 121 of Federal Decree-Law No. 35 of 2022 on Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions. The provision allows courts, at any stage of proceedings and either on their own initiative or at the request of a party, to order an expert to remedy deficiencies in their work or to appoint one or more additional experts, including to reassess the assignment.

The court also reaffirmed established jurisprudence that any substantive request or defence capable of altering the outcome of a case must be addressed with specific reasoning, failing which a judgment is deemed deficient.

It found that the claimant had insisted before the appellate court on the appointment of a new expert after the first report had been set aside, and that this constituted a substantive defence which could have changed the outcome. As the appeal judgment failed to address it, the ruling was flawed for insufficient reasoning and breach of defence rights.

The Supreme Court therefore quashed the judgment and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal without examining the remaining grounds of appeal.