The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims upheld a ruling by a court of first instance that rejected a lawsuit filed by a lawyer, in which he demanded that his client be obligated to pay him the amount of 348 thousand and 650 dirhams for the remainder of his fees. (the original plaintiff), in which he demanded that the latter be compelled to refund the amount of 450 thousand dirhams that he paid to him as part of the lawsuit fees, and the court ruled that the two appeals be rejected.
In the details, a lawyer filed a lawsuit against his former client, in which he demanded that he be obligated to pay him an amount of 298 thousand and 650 and compensation in the amount of 50 thousand dirhams and legal interest at 12%, while obliging the defendant to pay fees and expenses and in return for the fees, indicating that according to a power of attorney issued by the plaintiff The plaintiff filed and registered a commercial lawsuit, and he fulfilled his duties, and after the judgment was issued in favor of the defendant and the amounts decided were paid in his favor, the two parties agreed on the value of the due fees, amounting to 748 thousand and 650 dirhams, which is 713 thousand dirhams as fees and 35 thousand and 650 dirhams as the value of added tax, except that the plaintiff He paid him only 450 thousand dirhams and refused to pay the rest of the fees.
For his part, the defendant submitted a response memorandum that included a counterclaim in which he requested the dismissal of the original lawsuit. In the counterclaim, the court ruled the nullity of the fee agreement and obligated the cross-defendant to return him an amount of 450,000 dirhams and oblige him to pay him an amount of 200,000 dirhams as compensation, as a precautionary measure for the judiciary not to fulfill the terms of the agreement and the judiciary with a decrease. The debt, and the Court of First Instance decided to reject the original and counterclaims as they are and obligated each of them to pay the expenses of his claim.
The original defendant, the “cross-plaintiff,” did not accept this court, so he appealed it, and asked for the appeal to be accepted in form and in substance by canceling the appealed judgment and re-judging his requests in the counter-claim, lamenting the appealed judgment for the error in applying the law, the lack of reasoning, and the corruption in the inference.
While the original plaintiff lawyer appealed against the appealed judgment in rejecting his requests for the invalidity of the first agreement that was signed between him and the appellant, despite the fact that the contract supported the litigation, and the appellant did not appeal against his signature with an appealed price, and it is not permissible to reduce the attorney’s fees after it was agreed upon Completion of what was agreed upon, pointing out that if it is assumed that there is a nullity, then it relates to the first agreement and not the agreement that is the subject of the lawsuit.
For its part, the Court of Appeal clarified that what was proven by the judiciary issued by the Criminal Court of Cassation in the lawyers’ complaint filed against the cross-appellant, which upheld the decision issued authorizing him for the fact that he drafted a legal fees contract and its appendix in violation of the rules and laws regulating this contract, which is what makes the contract the basis for the litigation void. It is not permissible to claim what was agreed upon, and what came with his obituary that the contract is a pretext for the cause was drawn up after the end of the work entrusted to him, because this contract was included in the penal ruling.
The court indicated that the cross-appellant, after judging the invalidity of the contract and its support for the collection of attorney’s fees, had to resort to the court that had previously considered the dispute in the matter of the fees by requesting an estimate of the attorney’s fees for the effort exerted. Which he paid on the basis of this invalid agreement because these amounts, whatever they were, would be appreciated before the court, and the court decided to accept the two appeals in form and in their subject matter by rejecting them and upholding the appealed ruling and obliged each appellant to pay the expenses of his appeal.
Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news