This article examines a recent appellate judgment between (T.H.O.A. LLC) and (B.F.), along with (K.M.). This case highlights the UAE judiciary's approach to enforcing contract terms in real estate, with a particular focus on compensation for delays, contractual penalties, and the standards for substantiating claims.
Case Background
The case centres on a real estate agreement wherein B.F. and K.M. purchased property from T.H.O.A. LLC. Following contractual disputes regarding project completion and payment terms, B.F. and K.M. filed a claim against T.H.O.A. LLC. for damages resulting from delayed delivery. They argued that the developer had failed to meet contractual deadlines, leading to financial and potential reputational harm. The first-instance court ruled partially in favor of the claimants, awarding compensation and applying penalties for delay. T.H.O.A. LLC. subsequently appealed, challenging both the awarded amount and the basis for the penalties.
T.H.O.A. LLC. raised several issues in the appeal, focusing on the following points:
Responsibility for Project Delays: T.H.O.A. LLC. contended that the delays in project delivery were due to Grounds of Appeal
- unforeseen external factors such as COVID-19 pandemic, which should mitigate their liability. The developer argued that this factor was beyond their control and therefore should not result in penalties or compensation.
- Disputed Penalty Calculations: The appellant argued that the penalty calculations applied by the court of first instant exceeded contractual terms. T.H.O.A. LLC. maintained that the penalty rate applied was excessive and did not reflect the agreed-upon terms within the contract.
- Documentation of Expenses and Project Progress: T.H.O.A. LLC. claimed that the court of first instant failed to consider the supporting documentation provided, which outlined the expenditures and efforts made to complete the project within the expected timeframe. The developer argued that this documentation substantiated their actions and mitigated the need for compensation.
Court’s Review of the Evidence
The appellate court conducted a detailed review of the evidence, which included contractual terms, timelines, financial records, and project communications. Key findings from the court’s review included:
● Justification of Delays: The court acknowledged the factors raised by T.H.O.A. LLC as potential influences on project completion; however, it found that the evidence was insufficient to fully justify the delays. Consequently, the court ruled that some level of compensation was warranted for B.F. and K.M.
● Penalty Revisions: The court assessed the penalty rate applied and concluded that it required adjustment. The interest rate and penalties were recalculated to ensure they matched the terms of the original contract, taking into account both the financial burden on B.F. and K.M. and the limitations asserted by T.R.E.D. LLC.
● Documentation Requirements: The court emphasized the importance of maintaining detailed documentation to support any claims of delay justification. It ruled that T.H.O.A. LLC’s failure to present comprehensive records weakened their position, underscoring that developers must maintain transparency and detailed records to support claims.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
- Project Timeliness and Financial Responsibility: The court reinforced the importance of adhering to contractual deadlines in real estate projects, particularly where delays impact the financial expectations of investors and buyers.
- Interest Rate and Penalty Enforcement: The ruling clarified that interest rates and penalties must strictly follow the terms specified in the contract. Deviations from these terms require clear mutual agreement to be enforceable.
- Transparency and Documentation: The court reiterated that developers must maintain thorough documentation to substantiate claims related to delays or additional expenses, and failure to do so could result in unfavorable judgments.
Final Judgment
The appellate court issued a judgment that upheld the original ruling.
Conclusion
This case underscores the UAE judiciary's emphasis on contractual adherence, especially in real estate transactions involving project timelines and financial penalties. For developers, this judgment highlights the importance of transparent documentation and adherence to agreed-upon terms to avoid legal disputes. For investors, the ruling demonstrates their right to fair compensation in cases of delays and contractual breaches.
For further assistance please contact Al Safar & Partners on +971.4.4221944 email reception@alsafarpartners.com - www.alsafarpartners.com