- Legal Articles
- Ask Elhais
July 24, 2019|
The expansion of multinational companies is always either through incorporating a subsidiary or associating with a local distributor or a commercial agent in any jurisdiction. UAE is a standout amid the most preferable alternative where international companies can either sign an agreement for distribution or enters into an arrangement with the commercial agent for subsequent augmentation. Federal Law Number 18 of 1981 concerning UAE Agency Law, as amended (the Agency Law) is the only legislation which governs the attributes pertaining to the Agency Agreement signed by the parties. It is inevitable for foreign nationals to determine the advantages and disadvantages prior to engaging in a commercial relationship. Thus, Corporate Lawyers in Dubai have simplified for the readers to understand the Agency Law of UAE prior to appointing or terminating a Commercial Agent in UAE.
A registered agent typically relishes the exclusivity in their jurisdiction. In addition, under the Agency Law, the agent is entitled to earn a commission on registering and selling the products thereof. Further, the Agent is also authorized to block the imports at the customs authority, should there be a disagreement between the parties. The foregoing rights are devised in such a way to safeguard the interest of the agent who might have devoted significant efforts to build a profitable market for the principal. Henceforth, the agents in UAE can utilize the Agency Law to prevent the principal from registering a replacement agent unless the compensation is paid. Despite the stringent provisions, the court, in certain cases, has overruled the demands of commercial agents for termination of the contract on the grounds of non-performance of the agency contract. Following is the landmark judgment of the Court of Cassation declining the compensation for termination on the failure of agents to prove unjustified termination.
In the recent case of Federal Supreme Court Case 811 of 2017 and Federal Supreme Court Case of 814 of 2017, principal terminated the commercial contract due to substandard performance of the agent; it was evident that he was in clear breach of the agency contract.
Two principals in 1980 appointed an agent in UAE, whereby they agreed to sell and provide services on three brands of product, first two brands for principal 1 and the third brand for the principal. However, post two decades, the principals were facing the issue as the agency failed to perform his obligations under the said contract. Despite continuous reminders and warnings, the agent continued to be in default. Accordingly, the principals sent the letter for termination of the contract, inclusive of a final notice period to abide by the obligations pursuant to the contract, failing of which the agreement will be terminated completely. The agent failed to resolve the issue amicably.
In accordance with the Agency Law, the Ministry of Economy (MOE) is empowered to terminate an agreement based on justified reasons for termination. Thus, the MOE cancelled the agreement relying on three letters of termination for each brand, and subsequently, the invoice for the outstanding guarantee was issued. Accordingly, three cases were registered before the civil court against both the principals to set aside the ministerial decision for termination and reinstatement of the agent, placing its reliance on Article 14 of the Agency Law. The foregoing provision states that a meeting should be convened within 60 days from the date of termination to address the rationale behind termination and to offer an opportunity for agent's defence. Thus, failure to meet the pre-requisite of convening the meeting authorizes the court to strike down the ministerial decision of termination. However, to the utter shock of the agent, the court of the first instance rejected the claim and opined that MOE had fulfilled their duty basis the communication between the parties. Accordingly, the appeal was filed which ruled out the decision of Court of First Instance stating that although the meeting is a mere formality, it still exists to protect the agent. Principals filed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which upheld the decision of the Appeal Court. Post the decision of the MOE, the principals appointed new agents and subsequently the agency was registered.
Judgments and Appeals
A. Court of First Instance Judgment: Agent's request to cancel the registration of a new agent
The Agent's request to rescind the registration of new agent's registration was rejected by the First Instance court, and accordingly, the Agent filed an appeal. Appeal court overruled the First Court's judgment and declared the decision of the MOE null and void. However, the deregistration of the new agents was not approved by the Appeal Court as the same issue was not entertained by the First Court at the time of the judgment. Thus, the right to appeal is not granted.
The Agent approached the Supreme Court, and the matter was accordingly referred to the three experts, wherein, it was concluded by the experts that the Agent was in breach of the contract and thus, not entitled to the compensation. Even though the Agent won the judgment, the new agents were not deregistered. Accordingly, the request of the Agent to reinstate them in the register before the Execution court basis the invalidity of the MOE decision was rejected.
B. Compensation Claim (Part 1)
Upon finishing the foregoing case, the Agent filed three new cases against the principals for compensation of AED 600 million. The matter was referred to the expert who concluded the faulty actions of the agent which has caused significant losses to the principals. Thus, the Agents is not authorized to seek compensation. In accordance with the experts' report, the case was rejected in all the three courts.
C. Compensation Claim (Part 2)
A decade post receiving the unfavourable judgment on the compensation claim, the Agent filed three new lawsuits, against the principals, the Ministry and the New Agents. Defences like res judicata, statutory limitation, and no standing to sue the new agents were raised by the principals. First Instance Court accepted principals' defense and rejected the case against the ministry and the new agent. Subsequently, the case was rejected by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation on the same grounds. Epilogue
As evident from the case history, the matter was referred to the panel of experts to determine the entitlement of compensation, however, which was rejected in all the cases. Accordingly, the Supreme Court opined that:
The aftermath of the foregoing case sets a precedent for further Principal-Agent relationship. The court confirmed that the agents would not be entitled to seek compensation for termination, should there be a non-performance of the contractual obligations by the agent, notwithstanding the protections granted to agents under the Agency Law. Foreign companies must before terminating their contract with Commercial Agents approach Lawyers in Dubai to analyse the consequences for the same.
Copyright © of this article is retained by the author and/or other copyright owners. We explicitly grant you permission to download a copy, without any alteration, of this article for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or any charge. This article can be utilized on your website or for marketing, however, we grant you permission to host this article on your website and no other rights. This content should not be altered in any way or sold commercially in any format without prior permission of the copyright holder. During reference of this article, full biographic details entailing the name of the author, his designation, the institute and the publishing date of the article shall be provided.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
I owe the success of my case to Dr. Hassan's diligent approach. He remained focused, put me at ease and always went the extra mile. Dr. Hassan tirelessly put my case in the best possible light and I cannot thank him enough. I would highly recommend Dr. Hassan - I am grateful to him from the bottom of my heart.
Dr. Hassan Elhais is among the best legal consultants I have ever worked with. He has an amazing ability to reduce complex issues into a simple concept that non-legal people can understand. He consistently develops innovative litigation strategies that help us to achieve our ultimate legal goals.
...the extraordinary effort that has been exerted by the staff, and we specially thank Dr. Hassan Mohsen Alhais. Wishing your continues success & excellence...
I believe everyone should recognize what a difference Dr. Hassan Elhais work has made to people's lives; and especially to our family's life, because we will remain forever grateful to each and every one of his team.
Dr. Hassan Elhais never fears cases that involve exposure and he always gives me his honest assessment of our chances of success, which is invaluable to me.
He aided us not only in providing legal advice but also in all legal issues that required a long term strategic approach to achieve most favorable and optimum outcomes he provided us with high level of professional service.
Dr. Hassan Elhais is a responsible, reputable counsel who operates to high levels of service.
Dr Hassan Elhais is responsive, thorough and creative with his advice, and is a valued advisor and legal consultant.
Regardless of the complexity of the matter I know Dr. Hassan Elhais will consider not only legal strategy but also business practicalities in providing advice and litigation options.
I recommend Dr. Hassan Elhais to anyone who says 'I'm in legal trouble'. I was extremely satisfied with the high standard of his work. He has always been there when I have needed him and I refer all my clients, family and friends to him/his firm.
Dr. Hassan Elhais was very professional and he listened to my needs. He was very prompt, efficient and always kept me informed. Dr. Hassan Elhais's service was excellent and I would definitely recommend him to friends and colleagues.