2023-06-26 22:06:44
A designer engineering company was accused of making profit and agreeing with clients to carry out interior design work for its own account outside the framework of the company, and demanded that it pay 80,000 dirhams in compensation.
The Abu Dhabi Court for Family and Civil and Administrative Claims dismissed the case for lack of papers proving the accusation.
In the details, an engineering company filed a lawsuit before the Abu Dhabi Labor Court, against a designer, in which it demanded that it compel her to pay her an amount of 80 thousand dirhams and terminate the work contract immediately without rights according to the Labor and Workers Law and oblige her to pay fees and expenses.
The company stated that the defendant was working for her, and took advantage of her job to profit illegally, as she obtained cash amounts from clients amounting to 49 thousand dirhams, which constituted great damage and loss, noting that the designer made an agreement with clients outside the company’s headquarters with the intention of carrying out interior design work. She also, because of her recklessness, uploaded a project in violation of the municipality’s regulations and laws, which resulted in a violation of the company in the amount of 10 thousand dirhams.
The defendant submitted a response memorandum in which she demanded the dismissal of the case, and the Labor Court ruled that it had no qualitative jurisdiction to hear the case and referred it to the Civil Court.
A simple civil entry was reinstated, and during its consideration the owner of the plaintiff company attended the court, as well as the defendant in person, while the civil court clarified that according to the decision of the Evidence Law “the plaintiff must prove what he claims of the right and the defendant has the right to deny it,” and that the burden of proving the plaintiff’s right is It is the responsibility of the one who clings to it, and it is established in accordance with the Civil Transactions Law that every damage to a third party obliges the perpetrator, even if he is not discerning, to guarantee the damage.
The court indicated that the papers were devoid of evidence that there was a mistake on the part of the defendant, and it was also void of evidence that the sums submitted by declarations of persons outside the case were damages to the plaintiff because of the defendant in the event that they were proven correct, and it was also devoid of any evidence proving that the defendant carried out private actions. The plaintiff and took sums of money in exchange for it, especially since the court is not satisfied with the copies of the attached declarations, pointing out that the plaintiff did not request an investigation to prove the defendant’s fault, and the court ruled to reject the case in its case and obligated the plaintiff to pay the expenses.
1687819202
#company #accused #stealing #customers #business