Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Request No. 1 of 2013 (Labour), decision of 22 January 2014
The 60-day period for a cassation appeal (Article 176 of the former Civil Procedure Law) is extended by the ten-day distance period under Article 12 for an appellant whose domicile is outside the seat of the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal, such as Al Ain, even though the Court of Cassation's territory covers the whole emirate. On the merits, a post-employment non-compete under Article 127 of the former Labour Law is valid only if it is limited in time, place and type of work to what is needed to protect the employer's legitimate interests; a restriction amounting to a general ban on work is contrary to public order.
An Al Ain employer sued a former employee, a mechanic's assistant earning AED 1,800 a month, asking for cancellation of his labour card with a new employer in Dubai, which it described as a competitor. The labour court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the claim. The employer's appeal in cassation (No. 118 of 2013, labour) was lodged 67 days after the appeal judgment, beyond the 60-day period in Article 176 of the Civil Procedure Law unless the ten-day distance period in Article 12 applied. Because the civil chamber had refused that extension to appellants from Al Ain (reasoning that Al Ain lies within the Court of Cassation's territory under Law No. 23 of 2006), while other chambers granted it, the question was referred to the General Assembly.
The General Assembly held that the distance period serves fairness by giving a party who lives far from where a step must be taken extra time, so as not to shorten his real time limit. The relevant 'court circuit' in Article 12 is that of the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal, seated in Abu Dhabi city; the Court of Cassation's emirate-wide jurisdiction does not mean that a party from Al Ain lives within that circuit. It adopted the principle of adding the distance period for appellants domiciled outside the circuit of the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal, departing from the civil chamber's view, and held the appeal admissible.
Deciding the appeal itself, it applied Article 127 of the Labour Law, under which an employer may restrict a former employee from competing only where the work gave access to clients or secrets, the employee was at least 21, and the restriction is limited in time, place and type of work to what is needed to protect legitimate interests. The courts below rightly found that work in Dubai, about 150 km from Al Ain, did not satisfy the place requirement, that a broad ban would destroy freedom to work contrary to public order, and that the allegation of poaching a worker was unproven. The appeal was dismissed.
The decision mattered to litigants outside Abu Dhabi city, who gained ten extra days to lodge cassation appeals under the 1992 Civil Procedure Law. Its labour holding illustrates the courts' strict approach to non-compete clauses under the 1980 Labour Law: a restriction that does not reach the employee's new location is unenforceable. Both points were decided under the 1992 Civil Procedure Law and the 1980 Labour Law.
| Articles 12 and 176 of Federal Law No. 11 of 1992 (former Civil Procedure Law) Decided under this law; it has been replaced by Civil Procedure Code. |
| Article 127 of Federal Law No. 8 of 1980 (former Labour Law) Decided under this law; it has been replaced by UAE Labour Law. |
| Article 10 of Abu Dhabi Law No. 23 of 2006 on the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department |
“بإقرار المبدأ القاضي بإضافة ميعاد المسافة المنصوص عليه في المادة 12 من قانون الإجراءات المدنية في الطعون التي يكون موطن الطاعن فيها خارج دائرة محكمة استئناف أبو ظبي”Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.
A dismissal without the written investigation required by Article 44 leaves the employer liable for notice pay
An employer may dismiss a worker without notice under Article 44 of the Labour Relations Law only after a written investigation and, for repeated breach of duties, two wa…
Contracting parties cannot sue each other in tort for breach, and departing from expert findings needs sound reasons
Where the injured party and the party responsible are linked by a prior contract, the claim for compensation cannot be based on tort, because that would override the cont…
A worker injured through the employer's fault may sue in the civil court in tort, beyond the labour-law compensation
Compensation for work injuries under Article 37 of the Labour Relations Law and Cabinet Resolution No. 33 of 2022 is a statutory, no-fault entitlement based on risk, calc…
The RAK Free Zone arbitration scheme does not take away the courts' jurisdiction over free-zone disputes
Arbitration in UAE civil and commercial matters rests on the parties' free agreement, which defines its scope and removes the dispute from the courts. The Ras Al Khaimah …
A final civil award made in criminal proceedings survives the accused's later acquittal on the criminal charge
A judgment has res judicata effect only if it is final (قطعي) and issued by a court with jurisdiction, and only on a question that is fundamental, unchanged, argued betwe…
When the statement of claim was never validly served, the appeal court must send the case back to the first-instance court
Where the Court of Appeal annuls a first-instance judgment because the statement of claim was not validly served on the defendant, so that proceedings were never properly…
Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.
Arrange a Consultation →