A company turns its hostility towards the opposing lawyer to damage his reputation

A dispute between two companies over financial dues to one of them from the other turned into a legal dispute between the plaintiff and defendant company’s lawyers, as the latter pursued him with complaints and appeals, all of which were rejected, and accused him of violating the duties and dignity of the legal profession, which damaged his reputation and prompted him to sue it before the civil court in Dubai. Because she abused the right to litigate, which harmed his office morally and morally, the court ruled in his favor and obliged that company to pay an amount of 100 thousand dirhams in compensation to him.

In detail, a law firm in Dubai filed a civil lawsuit against a company, requesting that the defendant be obliged to pay him an amount of 200 thousand dirhams, as compensation for material and moral damages resulting from abuse of the right to litigation.

The office stated in its lawsuit that it is a legal agent for a company that owes the defendant sums of money, which prompted it, by virtue of its duty, to open a criminal report against the debtor party, on charges of giving a check in bad faith, worth 216 thousand dirhams, in addition to another report amounting to 805 thousand and 837 dirhams, and a ruling was issued. A final statement in favor of his client regarding her right to those amounts.

He added that he took the subsequent legal action, to guarantee the right of his client (the company), so he opened a commercial execution file to collect the awarded money, and after the defendant company announced this, he was surprised by it fabricating incorrect facts to obstruct the implementation of the judgment, claiming that he was not entitled to open the file and fulfill his client’s rights.

He pointed out that the defendant company filed a complaint against implementation, but the court rejected it, so it appealed the decision, and its appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal. It filed a third lawsuit in the same context, but it was also rejected by the competent court.

Despite the issuance of the previous rulings against it, the defendant company took another approach to attack the opposing lawyer, so it registered a complaint against him with the Conduct Committee, in which it claimed that he had violated the duties of the legal profession, but the committee decided to dismiss the complaint, and the company was also not satisfied with the decision, so it appealed it before the The Grievances Committee, which in turn rejected her appeal, and then the plaintiff lawyer ended up filing a lawsuit against that company, on the basis that the right to litigation is guaranteed to everyone on the condition that it is not abused, and he was morally and morally harmed by the company’s actions with him.

In turn, a legal representative of the defendant submitted a memorandum of request at the conclusion of which the case was dismissed for lack of validity, and he attached a folder of documents in which he folded a copy of the list of complaints filed by her before the Conduct Committee.

After examining the case, the civil court clarified the merits of its ruling, stating that Article (106) of the Civil Transactions Law stipulates that the right to litigation is guaranteed to everyone, but on the condition that the person does not abuse his right by taking malicious and bad faith measures with the intention of harming the opponent.

It concluded that it was established that the plaintiff, in its capacity as a law firm, exercised the mandate assigned to it and defended the rights of its client. However, the defendant, due to the plaintiff’s pressure on her before the enforcement judge, registered a complaint against him with the Conduct Committee, intending to harm his reputation before the judge. His client and his fellow lawyers took his arm, to discourage him from carrying out the correct procedures he had taken in the execution file.

The civil court concluded that the complaint filed by the defendant against the law firm was malicious and intended to insult him, causing moral and moral damage to him and his reputation. It therefore ruled to oblige it to pay the plaintiff an amount of 100 thousand dirhams.