Abu Dhabi court throws out employee’s AED448,353 claim against investor over forged cheques

Background of the claim

The plaintiff, an employee, filed the case demanding repayment of AED448,353, plus five percent legal interest and AED50,000 in compensation. He said a prior court had ordered him to repay the value of forged cheques he had cashed, and that he merely transferred the money to institutions associated with the first defendant without personal gain.

Defendant’s response and res judicata plea

The first defendant’s lawyer submitted a memorandum asking for dismissal, asserting that earlier judgments between the parties were binding and describing them as “official documents that are binding on everyone regarding what is stated therein”. He also claimed the plaintiff had forged the cheques, used them and squandered their value to the defendant’s detriment, and requested the case file be forwarded to the Public Prosecution for alleged knowing use of forged documents.

The court rejected the res judicata plea, noting that “the binding force of res judicata only applies when the parties, the subject matter and the cause of action are the same in both cases.” It added that such binding force applies only to the fundamental issue previously disputed by the parties and definitively decided by a court judgment.

Court’s assessment of evidence and outcome

The judges said the earlier ruling had settled the plaintiff’s liability to the bank for the forged cheque amount, including interest and compensation, and therefore did not bar consideration of the current claim. They found the plaintiff had not provided conclusive evidence that the funds he was ordered to repay had actually reached the defendants or that the defendants had directly benefited in a way that would justify reimbursement.

Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to show how much money was spent for the benefit of institutions linked to the defendants, or that those sums matched the amount he had been ordered to repay. No proof of unjust enrichment by the defendants at the plaintiff’s expense was presented, and the documents lacked statements, accounts or detailed financial records tracing the funds to the defendants or demonstrating any gain.

Because no direct link was established between the claimed sum and any advantage allegedly obtained by the defendants, the court concluded the lawsuit lacked sufficient evidence. It dismissed the case and ordered the plaintiff to cover the legal expenses.

(File photo for illustrative purposes only)