Dubai Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Appeal No. 3 of 2024, judgment of 11 February 2025
Under Article 52 of Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2022 regulating the advocacy and legal consultancy professions, a lawyer is paid according to the written agreement with the client, and a claim for agreed fees is brought by ordinary action before the court of first instance with territorial and value jurisdiction. Where there is no written agreement, the agreement is void, the client asks for a reduction or the lawyer for an increase, either may apply to the court of first instance that heard the case in which the lawyer acted, by an order on petition or by an ordinary claim. Before the Courts of Appeal and Cassation, and courts of equivalent rank, a fee assessment may be sought only by order on petition.
A lawyer agreed in writing to pursue a client's compensation claim for a traffic accident in return for 30 per cent of the amount awarded, plus court fees. He obtained an insurance committee award of AED 200,000, defended it through the courts until it became final and had it enforced; the client withdrew the money but refused to pay the fee. The lawyer sued for AED 60,000 and the fees he had paid. The court of first instance ordered payment of AED 54,189.50; the Court of Appeal reduced it to AED 4,189.50. The Attorney General of Dubai appealed in cassation, arguing that under Article 52 of the 2022 Decree-Law fee claims must be brought by order on petition, so the ordinary claim should have been declared inadmissible.
The First Civil Chamber referred the appeal to the General Assembly to settle the procedure for fee disputes under Article 52. The Assembly noted that procedural form should serve justice, not obstruct it. Under Article 44 of the Civil Procedure Code claims are ordinarily brought by a statement filed with the case management office. Article 52 provides that a lawyer is paid under the written agreement; that only the court that heard the case may reduce agreed fees found excessive or increase them where more work was required; that where there is no agreement or it is void that court assesses the fees; that assessment requests under paragraphs 1 and 3 are made by petition following the rules on orders on petition; and that fees for work unrelated to a case before the court are claimed by ordinary action.
The Assembly held, by the required majority, that a lawyer with a written agreement claims fees by ordinary action before the competent court of first instance. Without a written or valid agreement, or where reduction or increase is sought, either party may apply to the first-instance court that heard the case, by petition or by ordinary claim, while before appeal and cassation courts only the petition route is available. As the claim rested on a written agreement and had been brought by ordinary action, the appeal was dismissed.
Fee disputes between companies and their lawyers are common. Where a written engagement agreement exists, the fee claim proceeds as an ordinary lawsuit at first instance, with full defences, while the faster petition route applies to unwritten or void arrangements and to requests to reduce or increase fees. The judgment applies the 2022 advocacy law.
| Article 52 of Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2022 regulating the advocacy and legal consultancy professions |
| Article 44 of Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (Civil Procedure Code) — text of article 44 |
| Article 20 of Dubai Law No. 13 of 2016 on the Judicial Authority in the Emirate of Dubai (referral to and majority of the General Assembly) |
“فإن المحامي يتقاضى أتعابه وفقًا لهذا العقد، وتكون المحكمة المختصة بنظر دعوى المحامي للمطالبة بأتعابه هي المحكمة الابتدائية المختصة محليًا وقيميًا بنظرها”Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.
A grievance against a payment order must be heard by a judge other than the one who issued it
Under Article 147(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, a party may file a grievance against a payment order whose value is within the final jurisdiction of the first-instance …
Appeal judgments in substantive enforcement disputes, unlike those on pure enforcement steps, can be challenged in cassation
The Civil Procedure Code distinguishes temporary enforcement disputes, which seek only a stay or continuation of enforcement without touching the right and are decided by…
A debtor company's trade licences and other intangible business assets can be attached by its creditors
All of a debtor's assets secure its debts (Article 391 of the Civil Transactions Law), and a creditor may attach the debtor's movable and immovable property except what t…
A debtor may not be detained unless the creditor proves solvency or a listed exception applies
Under Article 319 of the Civil Procedure Code (outside the public-funds recovery regime), an execution judge may order the detention of a debtor able to pay who refuses t…
A properly filed and served claim interrupts limitation even if it is later dismissed or declared inadmissible
Under Article 484 of the Civil Transactions Law the limitation period is interrupted by a judicial claim, or any judicial step by which the creditor asserts its right aga…
A debtor's only home cannot be sold in execution on the ground that it exceeds his housing needs
Under Article 106(2) of the Civil Procedure Regulation (Cabinet Resolution No. 57 of 2018), the house used as a residence by the debtor and the dependants living with him…
Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.
Arrange a Consultation →