INTRODUCTION
A landmark judgment by the Qatar Court of Appeal saw the court reject the claimant's request to compel the defendant (our client) to pay an amount of QAR 50,000,000 to the claimant.
THE CASE AND ITS IMPORTANCE
The rationale of the judgment emphasized the significance of evidence-based defence and fair judicial procedures, reinforcing investor confidence in the Qatari legal system.
- The claimant sought, through their lawsuit, to oblige the defendant/our client to pay them QAR 50,000,000 as commission for services and efforts allegedly rendered, relying on a contract that allegedly authorized such payment.
- The court reasoned that the project awarded to our client did not fall within the scope of the contract between the parties. The mere fact that the project related to the same sector as the contract did not make it covered by the agreement, particularly when the terms of the contract were clear, explicit, and narrowly defined. The court concluded that the subcontracted tender, involving construction and infrastructure, was unrelated to the specific and agreed-upon scope under the contract. As a result, the lawsuit was dismissed.
DEFENCE STRATEGY AND CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED BY THE DEFENDANT/OUR CLIENT
- The defence was led by a team of BLK partners, including Tarek Saad, Abdallah Eisa, Celine Kanakri, and Counsel Tamim Momeni.
- The turning point in the dispute arose when the claimant, after their lawsuit was dismissed by the Court of First Instance, changed the legal bases of their claim before the Court of Appeal. They shifted their claim from reliance solely on the contract to a claim based on unjust enrichment. They also sought to add new parties to the case to produce further documents they alleged were in their possession.
- The claimant argued before the appellate court that the Court of First Instance's judgment was flawed due to misinterpretation. The claimant alleged that the disputed project was not entirely unrelated to the contract's sector. They asserted that a development project of this magnitude would inevitably involve components connected to the contract's subject matter. They argued that the subcontract awarded to our client included elements tied to the sector covered by the contract, given our client specializes in manufacturing the required equipment for the relevant sector.
- They further argued that the Court of First Instance based its judgment on a flawed rationale, as most of the subcontracted works were directly connected to the sector covered by the agreement, either explicitly stated in the contract's language or implicitly by the parties' intention.
- The claimant also invoked the appellate court's powers of review, emphasizing its authority to accept the alteration of the lawsuit's legal grounds and the inclusion of new defendants under Articles 173 and 232 of the Qatari Civil Procedures Law (Law No. 13/1990). The Qatari legislator permits litigants to amend the grounds of a lawsuit before the appellate court and to introduce new arguments not previously raised before the Court of First Instance, provided the original claim remains unchanged.
- Consequently, the claimant sought permission from the appellate court to include the main contractor of the disputed project as a new defendant to provide the subcontracting agreements and account statements between them and our client.
APPELLATE COURT JUDGMENT AND DEFENCE ARGUMENTS
The defence team successfully argued on behalf of the defendant and convinced the court of the lack of merit in the claimant's case. The reasoning of the appellate court's judgment demonstrated the strength of the defendant's position on the merits as follows:
"As for the substance of the appeal and the appellant's arguments regarding the trial court's error in applying the law by implicitly rejecting the counterclaim to amend the cause of action and the joinder request, article 22 of the investment court law states that:
None of the parties to the case may, after the expiration of the deadlines specified in articles (17), (18), (19), and (20) of this law, and any extensions or reductions applied to those deadlines under the preceding article, submit any new memoranda, documents, or requests unless the court permits it for serious reasons it deems appropriate. In such cases, the court shall set a deadline for their submission and response, if deemed necessary.
The article is clear and explicit in prohibiting the inclusion of any new party to the case...to avoid prejudice against the rights of the joined party. It only allows the requesting party to present serious reasons justifying the joinder, which the court may accept or reject. Furthermore, such serious reasons must primarily justify the failure to include the party initially.
It is evident from the documents that the appellant failed to include the joined party, despite the appellant being the principal party in the relationship underlying the case. The appellant was aware of its position in that relationship before filing the case, as evidenced by the appeal documents. Nothing prevented the appellant from including the joined party.
Additionally, the appellant failed to present any serious reasons justifying the non-inclusion of the joined party, either before the first-instance court or this appellate court. Accordingly, the judgment under appeal, by rejecting the joinder on valid grounds of fact and law, leads this court to conclude that this argument should be dismissed.
Whereas the appellant contends that the appealed judgment is deficient in reasoning and violates the right to defense, as the court stated its satisfaction with the expert's report and based its judgment on it, and since the expert's report indicated that the project was awarded, and the respondent obtained a portion of the project as a subcontractor. Furthermore, the report stated that "efforts and time were expended by the appellant in relation to this agreement by identifying opportunities and presenting them to the respondent. These services were the reason for the respondents' participation in the project as a subcontractor and its benefit therefrom. Without these services, participation would not have been possible, which allows the appellant to claim compensation on the grounds of unjust enrichment.
The appellant also filed a motion, alongside her comments on the expert report, for a supplementary claim to amend the basis of the lawsuit and to introduce a new party to reveal the truth. However, this was deemed unmeritorious by the court, as it ruled that new claims not previously submitted and without justifications are inadmissible, as previously noted. Especially since the original lawsuit was based on the disputed contract, and the expert concluded there was no connection between the claimed actions and the contract, the new claim was therefore irrelevant. Accordingly, the court rejects this contention as well.
Regarding the appellant's claim that the appealed judgment is flawed in its reasoning by concluding that the project in question is unrelated to the sector specified in the contract and thus does not fall within the scope of the service agreement between the appellant and the respondent, the court finds this argument unpersuasive. From one perspective, the court, based on the expert's report, determined that the claimed services are not covered by the agreement between the parties. Merely asserting that they pertain to the sector in question does not suffice to include them under the agreement, especially as the contract's terms are clear and specific in their scope. On the other hand, the tender in question pertains to the construction of four structures and does not relate to the agreed-upon services, as affirmed by the appointed expert and acknowledged by the appellant in her appeal documents. Therefore, the court dismisses this contention as well.
As for the motion to introduce a new party, given that the court has rejected the appeals and dismissed the appellant's case, the motion to introduce a new party has become moot and must be rejected.
In light of the foregoing, the court finds it appropriate to dismiss the appeal on the merits, uphold the appealed judgment, and order the appellant to bear the costs in accordance with articles 131 and 177 of the civil and commercial procedure code."
- The legal team of BLK partners successfully secured a judgment from the Court of Appeal rejecting the motion to introduce additional parties, specifically the main contractor, on the grounds that it would unnecessarily prolong the dispute without legal justification. Furthermore, the team succeeded in obtaining a judgment in favour of our client, the defendant, dismissing the claimant's claims to compel our client to pay an amount of QAR 50,000,000.
IMPLICATIONS FOR LEGAL AND COMMERCIAL SECTORS
- This judgment provides valuable lessons for both the legal and business communities.
- For professionals and legal practitioners: It underscores the importance of precision in presenting evidence and the role of disputing parties in interpreting contracts.
- For companies: It highlights the significance of carefully drafting and interpreting contracts before the courts.
CONCLUSION:
This judgment highlights the integrity of the Qatari legal system and underscores the critical role of evidence-based defence in contract interpretation, reinforcing the value of meticulous legal planning and properly drafted contractual contracts.
Originally published 02/04/2025
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.
