Khaberni - The primary civil court in the UAE ruled that an Arab individual must repay two million and 347 thousand dirhams for the benefit of another person to whom he was indebted, in addition to 50,000 dirhams as compensation, after proving he deliberately wrote the check in a manner that prevented its cashing, by writing the amount in numbers differently from the letters.
In detail, an Arab person filed a lawsuit demanding that the defendant be obliged to pay a debt confirmed on his part, by a check in the amount of two million and 347 thousand dirhams, including legal interests, fees, expenses, and attorney fees, and a compensation of 600 thousand dirhams for the damages he suffered.
The plaintiff stated in his lawsuit that the defendant was indebted to him in the amount written on the check, and when he went to the bank to cash it, he was surprised that the defendant had issued the check details in a way that prevented its cashing, as the amount in numbers differed from the amount in letters, leading the bank to refuse its payment.
He added that he filed a criminal complaint against the defendant, which led to him being referred to court, and a judgment was issued convicting him and fining him 234,746 dirhams for the accused offence of issuing a check in a form that prevents it from being cashed.
The plaintiff continued to repeatedly demand payment from the defendant but to no avail, which led him to resort to the civil court in Dubai as a result of the financial harm he suffered, consisting of being deprived of his money and the disruption of his commercial interests, and non-material damage due to psychological suffering and delays in recovering his rights, estimating the compensation for these damages at 600 thousand dirhams.
During the proceedings in court, the defendant’s attorney submitted a defense memo requesting the rejection of the lawsuit, as it was raised in a manner not prescribed by the law, arguing that the plaintiff did not follow the procedure of the payment order and, alternatively, requesting a stay of the lawsuit until the criminal judgment's appeal was resolved, and also requested appointing a forensic accountant to examine the transactions between the parties and the reason for issuing the check, claiming that it was a guarantee check, not a payment instrument.
A certificate issued by the Public Prosecution was presented showing that the defendant challenged the criminal judgment, while the plaintiff's attorney insisted in his memo that the check is a final payment instrument, and that the defendant did not provide any evidence of business transactions or financial relationship that would justify the non-payment.
After examining the documents and hearing the arguments, the court explained in the reasons for its judgment that the claim of nonacceptance of the lawsuit was not based on proper grounds, because article (150) of the Civil Procedures Law allowed the plaintiff to file the lawsuit through ordinary methods even with the availability of the conditions for a payment order, relying on this as established by the Court of Cassation jurisprudence.
The court also refused to suspend the lawsuit pending the resolution of the criminal appeal, explaining that the subject of the civil lawsuit differs from that of the criminal case, as the former concerns the indebtedness of the amount on the check, while the latter focuses on the method of editing it in a way that prevented its cashing, and there is no necessity requiring stopping the lawsuit.
The court pointed out that the check is a legal payment instrument presumed to have a legitimate cause, and the burden of proof to the contrary lies with the one who claims it, and since the defendant did not provide any documents or contracts proving the existence of business relations or financial dealings between the parties, the court saw that his defense was merely unsubstantiated statements unsupported by evidence.
It clarified that deriving the reason for the check from the facts of the lawsuit is subject to its evaluation, as long as it is reasonable and has a solid foundation in the documents, confirming that the debt claimed is established and existing, and that issuing the check in a way that prevents its cashing does not exempt the issuer from fulfilling its value, noting that the check in UAE law is a stand-alone commitment and a mandatory payment instrument, and that issuing it in a way that prevents its cashing does not negate the existing debt between the parties as long as the debtor did not provide evidence to the contrary.
About the compensation request, it stated that the Civil Transactions Law decrees that every damage to another obliges a guarantee, and that compensation is estimated according to the actual damage and loss of profit, and the court saw that the plaintiff suffered direct material damage represented in being deprived of his money and missing investment opportunities, and non-material damage represented in anxiety and psychological impact due to the delay in payment.
The court ultimately obliged the defendant to pay the full amount claimed, along with legal interest at the rate of 5% annually from the date of entitlement until payment, and compensation of 50 thousand dirhams for the material and non-material damages, in addition to fees, expenses, and attorney fees.
