Latest news with #DubaiRealEstateCourt
Gulf Today
11-08-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai orders buyer to pay Dhs1.68 million to seller over failed property deal
Dubai Real Estate Court has issued a verdict obligating the buyer of a real estate unit to pay the seller Dhs1.68 million accounting for 80 per cent of the down payment amounting to Dhs2.1 million held by the real estate brokerage company under a cheque deposit. The court also obligated the buyer to pay a 5 per cent annual legal interest from the date of the lawsuit until full payment, as compensation for the delay in fulfilling the obligation to purchase the property. Earlier, the seller of a real estate unit filed a lawsuit in which he requested the court to annul the sale contract, which stipulated that if the buyer withdrew after signing the agreement, he must pay a penalty of 10 per cent of the total value of the transaction, 80 per cent of which would go to the seller and 20 per cent to the broker. According to the official documents, the 809.11 square meter unit was valued at Dhs21 million. Under the contract concluded in January 2025, the buyer committed to paying a down payment of Dhs2.1 million in the form of a cheque deposit to be held by the seller's broker. The remaining Dhs18.9 million was to be paid upon registering the property in the buyer's name or through a secured payment method approved by the Land Department. The contract stipulated that its term would expire in mid-March 2025, but the buyer failed to pay the remaining amount or complete the transaction within the specified period, despite being formally notified before the expiry date. This prompted the seller to file a lawsuit demanding the contract's expiration to be substantiated and he be given his share of the down payment and legal interest. Based on the clause relating to the penalty for buyer withdrawal, the court ruled that Dhs1.68 million, accounting for 80 per cent of the down payment was entitled to the seller. The real estate brokerage company had not requested its 20 per cent share and therefore was not given to it. According to Dr. Alaa Nasr, seller's legal representative, the Civil Transactions Law stipulates that paying a down payment is evidence that the contract has become final and cannot be withdrawn from unless the agreement or custom stipulates otherwise. If the contracting parties agree that the down payment is a penalty for withdrawing from the contract, each of them has the right to withdraw, he said. Thus, if the one who has paid the down payment withdraws, he loses it, and if the one who received it withdraws, he must return it plus an equivalent amount, he added.
Gulf Today
10-06-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai court rejects mother's plea seeking partition of villa she co-owns with her son
Dubai Real Estate Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by an Asian woman seeking to cancel the co-ownership of a villa in Dubai between herself and her son, as each owns a 50% share. The court ruled that the villa, designated for single-family occupancy, cannot be divided into two equal portions. According to case details, the plaintiff stated that she intended to transfer her share of the property to her other son to ensure fairness and equality among her children. When she asked the property developer to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the sale and transfer process, the developer refused to issue the certificate due to the absence and non-cooperation of her son, who is a co-owner of the property. Case documents revealed that the plaintiff had previously filed a lawsuit before the Dubai Personal Status Court but the court ruled it lacked jurisdiction, prompting her to file the case before the Real Estate Court, requesting either the allocation of her share or the partition of the property to enable her to sell her portion to her other son. The court appointed a specialised expert to determine the feasibility of partitioning. The legal representative of the son argued for the dismissal of the case, citing the impossibility of division since the villa is designed for single-family occupancy and cannot be separated. The expert's report affirmed that the villa consists of a ground floor and a first floor, currently occupied by a tenant, and is designated for single-family use, making it impossible to divide into two equal shares. The expert also assessed the villa's market value at Dhs5.25 million, based on official data from the Dubai Land Department. Dr Alaa Nasr, the legal representative of the appellee, explained that the court's rejection of the plaintiff's claims was based on the provisions of the Civil Transactions Law, which stipulates that the jointly owned property must be divisible and the expert's report conclusively established the impossibility of fairly dividing the property.
Gulf Today
13-05-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai court obliges real estate firm to return Dhs1.267m to plot purchasers
Dubai Real Estate Court ordered a real estate development company to refund Dhs1,267,000 to two buyers, whom the company had sold a plot of land to build a residential villa but the company failed to deliver the land. The court also rejected the inclusion of a second company in the case, as it provided evidence of returning the amount it had received from the buyers. According to the case documents, the plaintiffs signed a land sale contract to build a residential villa, purchasing a plot from the appellee company for a total of Dhs1,334,000 and on the same date, the second appellee company signed a civil works management services contract with the plaintiffs, committing to construct a villa on the plot. Payments were agreed to be made in three installments and the first company received Dhs1,467,000 from the plaintiffs, including Dhs1,334,000 for the land and Dhs133,000 as the first installment for construction costs. The first company allegedly failed to deliver the land to the plaintiffs and both companies signed a termination agreement for the sale contract and the services management contract, with the first company pledging to refund the amount received from the plaintiffs, but it did not fulfill this obligation. The court noted that the first company did not provide evidence of clearing its debt or returning the amount received, having transferred only Dhs66,000, and thus, it still owes Dhs1,267,000. The court also rejected the inclusion of the second company in the case, as it provided proof of returning the amount it had received from the plaintiffs. Dr Alaa Nasr, the legal representative of the plaintiffs, stated that Article 246 of the Civil Transactions Law obligates contracting parties to fulfill the terms of the contract, and the contractor must execute the contract as agreed.
Gulf Today
18-04-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Realty firm ordered to refund Dhs1.9m to a woman in Dubai
The Dubai Court of First Instance ordered a real estate development company to refund Dhs1,935,000 (Dhs1.935 million) to an Arab woman after it was proved that the company failed to fulfill its obligations under an agreement following the cancellation of a real estate project, on the basis of which the woman had contracted to purchase a plot of land to build a villa on it. The court obligated the company to return Dhs1,785,000, representing the amount owed to the plaintiff under the settlement, in addition to Dhs150,000 as compensation for the damages she incurred due to the delayed payment. The case details date back to the time when an Arab woman filed a lawsuit with the Dubai Real Estate Court, demanding the refund of Dhs2.6 million she had paid to a real estate development company, along with a 12% legal interest. The case documents revealed that the plaintiff had taken a bank loan and paid its interest to purchase a plot of land and build a villa through the appellee company. It was revealed also that she paid the company Dhs2.1 million, but shortly before the delivery date, the company informed her of the project's cancellation without providing clear reasons. The company allegedly proposed an amicable settlement, which the plaintiff accepted, and an agreement was signed stating that the plaintiff was entitled to Dhs1,879,000 to be transferred to her bank account, but the company failed to comply, paying only Dhs94,000 despite receiving legal notices. The plaintiff's legal representative, Dr Alaa Nasr, stated that the court deemed the original contract canceled due to the settlement, and the plaintiff's request for a full refund of all payments was legally unacceptable in light of the settlement agreement. Dr Nasr added that the court considered the Dhs150,000 compensation to be proportionate to the actual damages the plaintiff incurred due to the company's failure to fulfill its contractual obligations.
Gulf Today
01-04-2025
- Business
- Gulf Today
Dubai court orders real estate firm to pay Dhs1.8m to investor for breaching the contract
Dubai Real Estate Court has ordered a real estate development company to pay Dhs1,815,000 to an Asian investor due to the company's failure to deliver a plot of land she had purchased to build a villa on. The company also failed to protect the investor's rights, as the land was seized and sold at a public auction. According to the case file, the investor filed a lawsuit against the project's owning company, the managing company, the project itself, and the owner of the first company, requesting the return of Dhs1,665,000, which she had paid for a 605-square-metre plot of land to build a villa, along with Dhs1,000,000 in compensation for the damages she incurred. The four appellees submitted memoranda requesting the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing that there was no basis for the investor's request to terminate the contract. They claimed that she had delayed constructing the building within the agreed 24-month period and had not completed the payment for the land. The investor's lawyer submitted a memorandum stating that his client had requested the termination of the contract and compensation after discovering that a lawsuit had been filed against the company that sold her the land and final rulings affirmed that the plot of land was originally granted as a gift from the third company to the first, and a final ruling had invalidated this gift. Due to legal disputes among the partners, the land was seized and sold at a public auction to a well-known company, which now legally owns it. The lawyer noted that the investor's failure to pay the remaining amount for the land was due to the company's inability to transfer ownership to her and the judicial ruling selling the land at auction removed the company's ownership, which was sufficient reason for the investor to halt full payment for the land. The court clarified that the contract was the responsibility of the first company only, and therefore, the second, third, and fourth appellees were not involved in the lawsuit. Consequently, the court obligated the company to repay the amount to the investor.
