The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling of the Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims, rejecting a case brought by a merchant against an accounting expert previously assigned in a case related to him.
The plaintiff had requested that the defendant be obligated to pay him 600,000 dirhams in compensation for damages he sustained “as a result of the expert’s failure to perform his duties” and “favoring the opponent.” The court ruled to reject the appeal.
The details of the case go back to a merchant filing a civil lawsuit, in which the defendant was assigned to examine documents. The plaintiff said that “the defendant accountant did not abide by the limits of the task entrusted to him, did not examine the securities, and did not indicate the due profits, which caused him material damage.”
He indicated that he had registered a complaint against the accountant in the Ministry of Justice before the Experts Disciplinary Committee, which showed the defendant’s negligence, while the fact of fraud or collusion on his part was not proven, and issued a decision acquitting him.
The Court of First Instance ruled to reject the case, and based its ruling on the fact that the case papers were devoid of any evidence of harm inflicted on the plaintiff as a result of the error attributed to the defendant.
She explained that the evidence from the papers is that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, in which the defendant was assigned as an expert, was considered by the Federal Court at its three levels. And it was returned from the Federal Court to the Court of Appeal, and the plaintiff was awarded in it more than one million dirhams with interest, and then the element of damage is negated.
And if the judiciary was not accepted by the appellant, he instituted his appeal, demanding the annulment of the appealed judgment and the judiciary again for him with his original requests before the first instance, and in reserve, he delegated and appointed a liaison expert to examine the expert’s incoming and outgoing calls on his phone, since the outbreak of his dispute until the date of the trial to prove his courtesy and favoritism to his opponent.
For its part, the Court of Appeal indicated in the merits of its ruling, that it was not proven in the papers that the appellee deviated from his behavior during the exercise of his mandate in the dispute about professional conduct, or his breach of its requirements, and the appellant did not provide evidence for his claim that he favored his opponent in the conclusion he reached with his report, and it ruled to uphold Appealed judgment.
#merchant #accuses #arithmetic #expert #favoring #discount