The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance ruled that a businessman owns a Range Rover and obligated his driver to re-register the vehicle in his name. He shall infringe the rights of other bona fide persons.
In the details, a businessman filed a lawsuit against his driver, requesting proof of ownership of a McLaren car worth 1,358 thousand and 741 dirhams, and a Range Rover worth 568,000 dirhams, canceling the registration of the two vehicles on the name of the defendant and registering them in his name, obligating the defendant to hand him over to the two vehicles, and invalidating any An act issued by the defendant in this regard, with the obligation of him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney’s fees.
He explained that he likes to own luxury cars and the defendant works as a driver, and since there were decisions that prevent the renewal of the ownership of any vehicle in the event of another expired vehicle and as a result of the expiry of the ownership of two cars of the plaintiff (a Ferrari and a McLaren P1) and the failure to renew the ownership, and it was impossible for him to renew the cars registered in his name, The driver suggested registering the vehicle in his name so that its insurance and license could be renewed, and the defendant pledged to re-register the vehicle to him after completing the registration and insurance procedures and the plaintiff’s return from his travels and in view of the trust and the fact that the driver works under his control and supervision, the two vehicles registered in his name, and after his return from travel, the driver was asked to transfer the ownership of the two vehicles On his name, however, he refused and refused without justification, and a complaint was opened against him, but the report was kept because the dispute is civil and that the McLaren vehicle is in the possession of the defendant, and the defendant refused to hand over the vehicle.
The report of the engineering expert, delegated by the court, showed that the two vehicles in the lawsuit were purchased by the plaintiff and paid their value, and in June 2019 he ceded them in favor of the driver, and the defendant relinquished the first vehicle to another person, while the second is still under his name, but it is in the possession of the plaintiff.
In the ruling, the court stated that the vehicle registration and licensing system with the relevant traffic department was not decided to prove their ownership, but rather it is a condition for their movement on the roads and a means to determine the official who can be referred to in the event of traffic violations, pointing out that the evidence in the papers and from the experience report that the plaintiff made By purchasing the two vehicles and registered with the Traffic and Vehicle Licensing Department in the name of the plaintiff, the expert stated that the two vehicles had transferred their ownership to the Vehicles and Drivers Licensing Department, in the name of the defendant, and the expert was unable to obtain any document proving the process of buying and selling between the two parties to the lawsuit or any commercial relationship between them.
The court clarified that the defendant joined the company owned by the plaintiff, and the court found that the two vehicles were registered in the defendant’s name, and the defendant did not provide evidence of his purchase of the two vehicles and disposed of one of them a month before filing the lawsuit, which makes it impossible to oblige the defendant to register the McLaren vehicle, and the plaintiff’s request was to invalidate any An act issued by the defendant resulting in infringement of the rights of other persons in good faith. The court decided to reject the request regarding the McLean vehicle, and ruled to prove the ownership of the Range Rover by the plaintiff, and oblige the defendant to register it in the name of the plaintiff and address the Traffic Department with that, rejecting all other requests while obligating the defendant lawsuit fees and expenses.
The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance ruled that a businessman owns a Range Rover and obligated his driver to re-register the vehicle in his name. He shall infringe the rights of other bona fide persons.
In the details, a businessman filed a lawsuit against his driver, requesting proof of ownership of a McLaren car worth 1,358 thousand and 741 dirhams, and a Range Rover worth 568,000 dirhams, canceling the registration of the two vehicles on the name of the defendant and registering them in his name, obligating the defendant to hand him over to the two vehicles, and invalidating any An act issued by the defendant in this regard, with the obligation of him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney’s fees.
He explained that he likes to own luxury cars and the defendant works as a driver, and since there were decisions that prevent the renewal of the ownership of any vehicle in the event of another expired vehicle and as a result of the expiry of the ownership of two cars of the plaintiff (a Ferrari and a McLaren P1) and the failure to renew the ownership, and it was impossible for him to renew the cars registered in his name, The driver suggested registering the vehicle in his name so that its insurance and license could be renewed, and the defendant pledged to re-register the vehicle to him after completing the registration and insurance procedures and the plaintiff’s return from his travels and in view of the trust and the fact that the driver works under his control and supervision, the two vehicles registered in his name, and after his return from travel, the driver was asked to transfer the ownership of the two vehicles On his name, however, he refused and refused without justification, and a complaint was opened against him, but the report was kept because the dispute is civil and that the McLaren vehicle is in the possession of the defendant, and the defendant refused to hand over the vehicle.
The report of the engineering expert, delegated by the court, showed that the two vehicles in the lawsuit were purchased by the plaintiff and paid their value, and in June 2019 he ceded them in favor of the driver, and the defendant relinquished the first vehicle to another person, while the second is still under his name, but it is in the possession of the plaintiff.
In the ruling, the court stated that the vehicle registration and licensing system with the relevant traffic department was not decided to prove their ownership, but rather it is a condition for their movement on the roads and a means to determine the official who can be referred to in the event of traffic violations, pointing out that the evidence in the papers and from the experience report that the plaintiff made By purchasing the two vehicles and registered with the Traffic and Vehicle Licensing Department in the name of the plaintiff, the expert stated that the two vehicles had transferred their ownership to the Vehicles and Drivers Licensing Department, in the name of the defendant, and the expert was unable to obtain any document proving the process of buying and selling between the two parties to the lawsuit or any commercial relationship between them.
The court clarified that the defendant joined the company owned by the plaintiff, and the court found that the two vehicles were registered in the defendant’s name, and the defendant did not provide evidence of his purchase of the two vehicles and disposed of one of them a month before filing the lawsuit, which makes it impossible to oblige the defendant to register the McLaren vehicle, and the plaintiff’s request was to invalidate any An act issued by the defendant resulting in infringement of the rights of other persons in good faith. The court decided to reject the request regarding the McLean vehicle, and ruled to prove the ownership of the Range Rover by the plaintiff, and oblige the defendant to register it in the name of the plaintiff and address the Traffic Department with that, rejecting all other requests while obligating the defendant lawsuit fees and expenses.
The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance ruled that a businessman owns a Range Rover and obligated his driver to re-register the vehicle in his name. He shall infringe the rights of other bona fide persons.
In the details, a businessman filed a lawsuit against his driver, requesting proof of ownership of a McLaren car worth 1,358 thousand and 741 dirhams, and a Range Rover worth 568,000 dirhams, canceling the registration of the two vehicles on the name of the defendant and registering them in his name, obligating the defendant to hand him over to the two vehicles, and invalidating any An act issued by the defendant in this regard, with the obligation of him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney’s fees.
He explained that he likes to own luxury cars and the defendant works as a driver, and since there were decisions that prevent the renewal of the ownership of any vehicle in the event of another expired vehicle and as a result of the expiry of the ownership of two cars of the plaintiff (a Ferrari and a McLaren P1) and the failure to renew the ownership, and it was impossible for him to renew the cars registered in his name, The driver suggested registering the vehicle in his name so that its insurance and license could be renewed, and the defendant pledged to re-register the vehicle to him after completing the registration and insurance procedures and the plaintiff’s return from his travels and in view of the trust and the fact that the driver works under his control and supervision, the two vehicles registered in his name, and after his return from travel, the driver was asked to transfer the ownership of the two vehicles On his name, however, he refused and refused without justification, and a complaint was opened against him, but the report was kept because the dispute is civil and that the McLaren vehicle is in the possession of the defendant, and the defendant refused to hand over the vehicle.
The report of the engineering expert, delegated by the court, showed that the two vehicles in the lawsuit were purchased by the plaintiff and paid their value, and in June 2019 he ceded them in favor of the driver, and the defendant relinquished the first vehicle to another person, while the second is still under his name, but it is in the possession of the plaintiff.
In the ruling, the court stated that the vehicle registration and licensing system with the relevant traffic department was not decided to prove their ownership, but rather it is a condition for their movement on the roads and a means to determine the official who can be referred to in the event of traffic violations, pointing out that the evidence in the papers and from the experience report that the plaintiff made By purchasing the two vehicles and registered with the Traffic and Vehicle Licensing Department in the name of the plaintiff, the expert stated that the two vehicles had transferred their ownership to the Vehicles and Drivers Licensing Department, in the name of the defendant, and the expert was unable to obtain any document proving the process of buying and selling between the two parties to the lawsuit or any commercial relationship between them.
The court clarified that the defendant joined the company owned by the plaintiff, and the court found that the two vehicles were registered in the defendant’s name, and the defendant did not provide evidence of his purchase of the two vehicles and disposed of one of them a month before filing the lawsuit, which makes it impossible to oblige the defendant to register the McLaren vehicle, and the plaintiff’s request was to invalidate any An act issued by the defendant resulting in infringement of the rights of other persons in good faith. The court decided to reject the request regarding the McLean vehicle, and ruled to prove the ownership of the Range Rover by the plaintiff, and oblige the defendant to register it in the name of the plaintiff and address the Traffic Department with that, rejecting all other requests while obligating the defendant lawsuit fees and expenses.
The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance ruled that a businessman owns a Range Rover and obligated his driver to re-register the vehicle in his name. He shall infringe the rights of other bona fide persons.
In the details, a businessman filed a lawsuit against his driver, requesting proof of ownership of a McLaren car worth 1,358 thousand and 741 dirhams, and a Range Rover worth 568,000 dirhams, canceling the registration of the two vehicles on the name of the defendant and registering them in his name, obligating the defendant to hand him over to the two vehicles, and invalidating any An act issued by the defendant in this regard, with the obligation of him to pay fees and expenses and in return for attorney’s fees.
He explained that he likes to own luxury cars and the defendant works as a driver, and since there were decisions that prevent the renewal of the ownership of any vehicle in the event of another expired vehicle and as a result of the expiry of the ownership of two cars of the plaintiff (a Ferrari and a McLaren P1) and the failure to renew the ownership, and it was impossible for him to renew the cars registered in his name, The driver suggested registering the vehicle in his name so that its insurance and license could be renewed, and the defendant pledged to re-register the vehicle to him after completing the registration and insurance procedures and the plaintiff’s return from his travels and in view of the trust and the fact that the driver works under his control and supervision, the two vehicles registered in his name, and after his return from travel, the driver was asked to transfer the ownership of the two vehicles On his name, however, he refused and refused without justification, and a complaint was opened against him, but the report was kept because the dispute is civil and that the McLaren vehicle is in the possession of the defendant, and the defendant refused to hand over the vehicle.
The report of the engineering expert, delegated by the court, showed that the two vehicles in the lawsuit were purchased by the plaintiff and paid their value, and in June 2019 he ceded them in favor of the driver, and the defendant relinquished the first vehicle to another person, while the second is still under his name, but it is in the possession of the plaintiff.
In the ruling, the court stated that the vehicle registration and licensing system with the relevant traffic department was not decided to prove their ownership, but rather it is a condition for their movement on the roads and a means to determine the official who can be referred to in the event of traffic violations, pointing out that the evidence in the papers and from the experience report that the plaintiff made By purchasing the two vehicles and registered with the Traffic and Vehicle Licensing Department in the name of the plaintiff, the expert stated that the two vehicles had transferred their ownership to the Vehicles and Drivers Licensing Department, in the name of the defendant, and the expert was unable to obtain any document proving the process of buying and selling between the two parties to the lawsuit or any commercial relationship between them.
The court clarified that the defendant joined the company owned by the plaintiff, and the court found that the two vehicles were registered in the defendant’s name, and the defendant did not provide evidence of his purchase of the two vehicles and disposed of one of them a month before filing the lawsuit, which makes it impossible to oblige the defendant to register the McLaren vehicle, and the plaintiff’s request was to invalidate any An act issued by the defendant resulting in infringement of the rights of other persons in good faith. The court decided to reject the request regarding the McLean vehicle, and ruled to prove the ownership of the Range Rover by the plaintiff, and oblige the defendant to register it in the name of the plaintiff and address the Traffic Department with that, rejecting all other requests while obligating the defendant lawsuit fees and expenses.