Ellis Ford and Co. not to get damages from businessman

DUBAI — The Dubai Court of First Instance recently received a request to cancel all confiscations of the assets of a UAE national businessman, after it upheld the verdict of lower courts, dismissing the appeal of Rashid Khalaf seeking a stay on the confiscation of his assets in two banks, amounting to £147,000 (Dh981,962) by Ellis Ford & Company. This put an end to a long dispute — dealt within the country and in London — in favour of the businessman. Sameer Ja’afar, the lawyer of Rashid Khalaf, said that the Dubai Court of First Instance, issued a verdict in his client’s favour, while rejecting the company’s request to confiscate the mentioned amount of money.

By A Staff Reporter

Published: Wed 29 Jun 2005, 11:04 AM

Last updated: Thu 2 Apr 2015, 3:47 PM

What made the company file an appeal that was also rejected?

The case goes back a few years, according to the claims of the real estate company based in London, when Rashid requested the company to sell land owned by him in London. The company agreed to the task on the condition of a commission of two per cent of the final price from the land sale. When the company presented a buyer, it was surprised to learn that the seller and the buyer closed the deal through another agent. This is when the chase started — the company filed a case in London demanding its share of the pie, which the court approved. So, the case came with the defendant to Dubai, where Sameer Ja’afar went over the conditions of implementing this verdict. The Dubai court was responsible now to solve the dispute, but the lack of documents here led to the dismissal of the case in the defendant’s favour. It’s not acceptable to have a verdict that is implemented in one country and not implemented in another, ruled the court. So, if the verdict was not implemented in London, it will not be done here, concluded the court. Ellis Ford filed an appeal, but the lawyer Sameer presented a long memo, showing that the appeal was not built on any new evidence, so it was rejected by the court, and the verdict of the Court of First Instance was upheld.