The Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of First Instance dismissed a lawsuit filed by an employee seeking the return of AED448,353 from an investor and his agent, along with legal interest and compensation. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants benefited from the funds linked to forged cheques or that the amounts had been transferred to their liability.
The employee filed a lawsuit against the investor and his agent, seeking an order for them to jointly pay AED448,353, plus 5% legal interest and AED50,000 in compensation. He argued that he had previously been ordered by a court to repay the value of forged cheques. He maintained that he was merely an employee who disbursed the funds to institutions affiliated with the first defendant and did not personally benefit from the money.
The first defendant’s lawyer submitted a response memorandum seeking dismissal of the case. He argued that previous judicial rulings between the parties were binding, describing them as “official documents that are binding on everyone regarding what is stated therein”. He further alleged that the plaintiff had forged the cheques, used them and squandered their value to the detriment of the defendant. The lawyer also requested that the case file be referred to the Public Prosecution over allegations that the plaintiff knowingly used forged documents.
The court rejected the defendant’s plea, noting that “the binding force of res judicata only applies when the parties, the subject matter and the cause of action are the same in both cases.” It added that such binding force applies only to the fundamental issue previously disputed by the parties and definitively decided by a court judgment.
The court said the previous ruling had settled the plaintiff’s liability to the bank for the value of the forged cheques he had cashed and had ordered him to pay the amount, interest and compensation. Therefore, that ruling did not prevent the court from considering the present recourse claim.
The court found that the plaintiff had not provided conclusive or sufficient evidence to prove that the value of the cheques he was previously ordered to repay had actually passed into the hands of the defendants or that they had directly benefited from the funds in a manner that would justify requiring them to reimburse him.
It further noted that he had not provided evidence establishing the amount of money spent for the benefit of institutions affiliated with the defendants, nor that those funds were the same amounts he had been ordered to repay under the previous judgment. The court also found no evidence of unjust enrichment by the defendants at the plaintiff’s expense. The documents submitted lacked statements, accounts or detailed financial records proving that the funds had been transferred to the defendants or that they benefited from them. No direct link was established between the amount claimed and any gain allegedly obtained by the defendants. As a result, the court found that the lawsuit lacked sufficient evidence to support the claim.
The court dismissed the case and ordered the plaintiff to pay the legal expenses.