Khaberni - The Primary Civil Court in the UAE ruled that an Arab individual must pay two million and 347 thousand dirhams for the benefit of another who he owed the amount to, in addition to 50 thousand dirhams as compensation, after it was proven he deliberately wrote the check in a way that prevented it from being cashed, by writing the amount in numbers different from words.
Details reveal that an Arab individual filed a lawsuit demanding that the defendant be obligated to pay a debt confirmed by a check for the amount of two million and 347 thousand dirhams, along with legal interest, fees, expenses, and attorney fees, and a compensation of 600 thousand dirhams for damages incurred.
He stated in his lawsuit that the defendant owed him the amount and issued him a check for the debt value. When he went to the bank to cash it, he was surprised that the defendant had prepared the check details in a way that prevented its cashing, as the amount in numbers differed from the amount in words, which led the bank to refuse its clearance.
He added that he filed a criminal complaint against the defendant, and the latter was subsequently referred to court, resulting in a verdict convicting him and fining him 234,746 dirhams for the offense of issuing a check in a manner that prevents its cashing.
The plaintiff continued stating that he repeatedly demanded the defendant to pay, but to no avail, which led him to resort to the Dubai Civil Court due to the material damage he suffered, reflected in being deprived of his money and the disruption of his trade interests, and moral damage due to the psychological suffering and delay in recovering his rights, estimating the compensatory value for these damages at 600 thousand dirhams.
During the proceedings in court, the defendant's attorney presented a defense memorandum requesting the dismissal of the lawsuit, for it was raised improperly as per the law. He claimed that the plaintiff did not pursue the payment order route, and conditionally requested a stay of the lawsuit pending the decision on the appeal of the criminal verdict. He also requested appointing a financial expert to investigate the transactions between the parties and the reason for issuing the check, claiming it was a guarantee check and not a payment instrument.
A certificate issued by the public prosecution indicated that the defendant appealed the criminal verdict, while the plaintiff’s attorney insisted in his memorandum that the check was a final payment instrument, and the defendant had not presented any evidence of commercial dealings or a financial relationship that justified the refusal of payment.
After reviewing the documents and hearing the argumentation, the court explained in the reasons for its verdict that the plea of inadmissibility of the lawsuit was not based on a valid basis, since article (150) of the Civil Procedures Law permitted the plaintiff to file the lawsuit through ordinary means even with the availability of payment order conditions, based on settled jurisprudence from the Court of Cassation.
The court also rejected the request to stay the lawsuit pending the decision on the criminal appeal, explaining that the subject of the civil lawsuit differs from that of the criminal lawsuit. The former relates to the indebtedness of the check amount, while the latter focuses on the manner of its issuance which prevented its cashing, and there is no necessity between the two cases that requires halting the lawsuit.
The court noted that the check is a legal payment instrument, presumed to have a legitimate cause, and that the burden of proving otherwise falls on the claimant. Since the defendant did not provide any document or contract proving the existence of a commercial relationship or financial transactions between the parties, it viewed his defense as mere unsubstantiated claims.
It clarified that deducing the purpose of the check from the facts of the lawsuit is within its discretion as long as the deduction is plausible and has a proven basis in the documents, confirming that the debt claimed is established and exists, and that issuing the check in a manner that prevented its cashing does not exempt the issuer from fulfilling its value, pointing out that in UAE law, the check is considered an existing obligation in itself and a mandatory payment instrument. Issuing it in a way that prevents its cashing does not negate the established debt between the parties as long as the debtor has not presented proof to the contrary.
Regarding the compensation claim, the court stated that the Civil Transactions Law asserts that any injury to others necessitates warranty, and compensation should be estimated at the actual damage and lost profits. The court found that the plaintiff suffered direct material damage reflected in being deprived of his money and missing the opportunity to invest it, and moral damage reflected in the stress and psychological impact caused by the delay in payment.
The court concluded by obligating the defendant to pay the full amount claimed, plus a legal interest of 5% annually from the date of entitlement until payment, and a compensation of 50 thousand dirhams for the material and moral damages, in addition to the fees, expenses, and attorney fees.
