Book an appointment with us, or search the directory to find the right lawyer for you directly through the app.Find out more
Welcome to the latest edition of Law Update titled “Rise of Generative AI.”
In this edition, we dive into the dynamic world of Technology, Media, and Telecommunications (TMT) across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. TMT continues to play a vital role in positioning the region as an international business and social hub, driving significant growth and innovation.
Our focus in this Law Update is on the sector’s ongoing potential to advance and propel the region toward a more digital economy. We explore the benefits of embracing a digital transformation and how local authorities have responded by enhancing regulations to accommodate the evolving TMT landscape.
This edition covers a range of topics, including – the new Telecommunications & Information Technology Law in Saudi Arabia, the intricacies of trademarks in the Metaverse, and the legal challenges faced by the video game industry. Additionally, we take a regional perspective, discussing jurisdictions such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, and Bahrain to provide a comprehensive understanding of the TMT landscape.
We hope you thoroughly enjoy this packed issue of Law Update, filled with captivating articles that address key legal issues within a vital sector for the region.Read the full edition
Tariq Idais - Senior Associate
July – August 2014
The judgment of the Court of First Instance was issued in favour of the Plaintiff but it was then reversed by the Appeal Court in November 2013. Al Tamimi & Company represented the Appellant in the successful appeal.
The Plaintiff was scheduled to depart from Doha to Venice on the Defendant’s aircraft. However, the Plaintiff arrived at the check-in counter late and with excess baggage. Once the Plaintiff had reduced his baggage, he was directed by the Defendant’s staff to proceed to the check-in counter and Boarding Gate 7, as was stated on his boarding card.
Due to operational reasons, the boarding gate was amended at short notice to Boarding Gate 11. So the Plaintiff proceeded to complain that the boarding gate was changed and that the Defendant had attempted to charge him for his excess baggage. The Plaintiff began to shout, despite the fact that he was advised that if he persisted he would be denied boarding. The Plaintiff did, however, persist and he also raised his grievance with a police officer. The Plaintiff was denied boarding on the aircraft by the Defendant’s staff and his baggage was offloaded.
The Nature of the Claim
The Plaintiff brought an action against the Defendant seeking damages in the sum of AED 20,000 and AED 1,700 as a refund of the ticket price. The Plaintiff claimed that he bought a ticket from the Defendant to travel from Doha to Venice and was directed by the Defendant’s staff at the airport to proceed to Boarding Gate 7. Hence, the Plaintiff had been waiting at Boarding Gate 7, as he was directed and as was stated on the boarding card.
The Plaintiff claimed that, despite the change from Gate 7 to Gate 11, the Defendant’s staff did not direct him to Boarding Gate 11. When the Plaintiff asked the Defendant’s staff about the reasons for amending the gate number, he was denied boarding on the flight. Therefore, the Plaintiff said, he bought another boarding card in the sum of AED 1,700.
The Court of First Instance
The Court of First Instance found that there was fault (negligence) on behalf of the Defendant. The Court reached its decision on the following grounds:
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance rendered its judgment in favour of the Plaintiff and ordered the Defendant to pay damages to the Plaintiff in the amount of AED 10,000, in addition to all expenses and fees.
The Court of Appeal
The Defendant filed an appeal to challenge the Court of First Instance’s Judgment on the basis that there was a lack of evidence to support the findings of the Court of First Instance and that, in any event, an alteration of the boarding gate is not the responsibility of the Airline. The Court of Appeal accepted the Defendant’s appeal, cancelled the Court of First Instance’s judgment and dismissed the Plaintiff’s case.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the amendment to the boarding gate is not the responsibility of the company that owns the aircraft rather it is the responsibility of the company that provides services to the airport. Moreover, the Court pointed out that, in principle, the staff of aircraft companies do not arbitrarily deny passengers boarding aircraft. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the Plaintiff/Respondent was unjustly denied boarding.
Although this judgment is not issued by the Cassation Court, it should in our view be regarded as an approach that can be relied on and referred to in similar cases. It seems, in this case, that the Court of First Instance made a decision that the Appeal Court reversed with no difficulty, given the obvious position in law and the lack of evidence presented by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
It is worth mentioning that the Court of Appeal’s judgment should be final and not appealable, by virtue of Article 173 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law, as the total amount of claims before the Court of First Instance did not exceed AED 200,000.
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.