Book an appointment with us, or search the directory to find the right lawyer for you directly through the app.
Find out moreWelcome to the first edition of Law Update for 2025. As we begin this exciting year, we are pleased to turn our attention to one of the most dynamic sectors in the UAE and the broader GCC region – healthcare. Over the past several years, the region has seen unprecedented growth in this sector, driven by legislative advancements, technological innovations, and the increasing focus on sustainability and AI. As such, healthcare is set to be one of the most important sectors in the coming decade.
In this issue, we explore key themes that are significantly shaping the future of healthcare in the UAE, such as recent changes in foreign ownership laws. These reforms present a major opportunity for foreign investors, opening up new avenues for international collaborations and improving the overall healthcare infrastructure. The changes in ownership laws are an important milestone, and we provide an analysis of what this means for the industry and the various players involved.
Read NowRami Abdellatif
June – July 2015
Background
The Defendants appealed the judgment before the Court of Cassation on the grounds of:
The Defendants argued that the Court had ruled for the invalidity of the brokerage contract due to its form, despite evidence submitted to prove that the transaction for plot no. 32 had been executed by the Defendants, as a result of their mediation, for the benefit of the Claimant. This fact had been confirmed by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal had also pointed out in its reasoning that the Claimant has issued the cheques because of the Defendants’ mediation efforts for the land deal.
Judgment of the Court of Cassation
In its ruling, the Court of Cassation granted the appeal of the Defendants (the Brokers) and explained that Articles 210 and 274 of the Civil Transactions Law provide that if the subject matter of an obligation is contrary to public order or morals, the contract is considered void. In deciding the invalidity of the contract, the contracting parties shall return the received amounts pursuant to the provision on refund of unentitled amounts at Article 321 of the Civil Transactions Law. Even if the invalidity is due to illegality, such that restitution is impossible, if a contracting party has provided a benefit, the recipient party is obliged to make fair compensation.
Even though the judgment under appeal had found that the contract of brokerage was invalid because it was not interpreted into a written form and this should lead to restoring the parties to their initial status before contracting and thus obliging the Defendants to refund the amounts received from the Claimant, the expert assigned by the Court of First Instance had stated in his report that the purchase transaction of plot no. 32 for the company belonging to the Claimant and his son was a result of the effort made by the Defendants, which meant that they had achieved a benefit for the Claimant in procuring the plot. Due to the impossibility of restitution for the benefit received by the Claimant, the Defendants deserved compensation for their effort and this should have been estimated by the judgment. The appealed judgment had violated the law in ruling that the Defendants must refund the amounts received from the Claimant without estimating compensation for the benefit they provided, and must be revoked for this reason.
To learn more about our services and get the latest legal insights from across the Middle East and North Africa region, click on the link below.