In an action initially filed before the Dubai Court, the Court of Cassation held that in accordance with Law no. 13 of 2008 the Dubai Land Property Department (DLPD) is the responsible authority for registering the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) or any other transactions in the Interim Real Estate Register (IRER) within the 60 days period prescribed by the said law. The Court held further that the plaintiff has the right to initiate legal proceedings before the Court without first having recourse to the DLDP to file a complaint against the developer.

Claim

A property action was filed by the Purchaser ("the Claimant") against a limited liability company ("the Defendant"). The Claimant requested the court to order the Defendant to deliver the "Villa" the subject of this claim. The Claimant contended that although he complied with all of his obligations and paid all the due installments as per the payment schedule agreed on this contract the Defendant failed to deliver the Villa on the expected date (by the end of 2007). The court appointed an engineer expert. After submitting the report the Claimant added a new claim to his previous claim requesting the court to order the Defendant to pay him an amount of AED 4,000,000 as a compensation for his lost due to the failure of the defendant to comply with his contractual obligations along with 9% interest from the day the judgment will become final until full payment.

Court of First Instance

The Court of first instance decided as follows:

  • Annulled the SPA of the Villa concluded between the Claimant and the Defendant; an
  • Rejected the case.

Both parties appealed the decision. In their appeal, the Defendant requested to cancel clause 1 of the lower's court decision and to reject the case. On the contrary the Claimant requested the court to cancel the appealed judgment and to rule in his favor.

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal cancelled the judgment and again reject/dismiss the case. The Claimant subsequently appealed to the Court of Cassation.

Court of Cassation

The Claimant argued that the Court of Appeal was wrong in its decision to reject the case due to non-existence of a report from the DLPD, as stipulated in article 13 of Law no. 13 of 2008 that prove the failure of the defendant with its contractual obligations. The Claimant contented that this article did not impose:

  • On the claimant to file a complaint with the DLDP against the developer before initiating his legal action
  • Any penalty on the claimant if he had recourse to the competent court.

The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant's argument. The Court of Cassation held that article 3 (2) of Law no. 13 of 2008 when read together with art 13 of the same Law can be interpreted to mean that the DLPD is the responsible authority to assess the developer's non compliance with article 3 (2) and 13 of the said Law. However, the Court of Cassation stated that, having recourse to the competent court without filing a complaint with the DLPD will not preclude the court or withhold its jurisdiction from seeing the case.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.