UAE courts hear a free-zone employee's claim against a foreign employer where the contract was performed in RAK

The principle

UAE courts have jurisdiction over a claim against a foreign defendant with no domicile or residence in the UAE where the dispute concerns an obligation performed in the UAE, and any agreement to the contrary is void. An employment contract performed at the employer's establishment in the Ras Al Khaimah Free Zone therefore falls within the jurisdiction of the RAK courts. A court that awards or refuses arbitrary-dismissal compensation and leave pay without examining the employee's evidence on these points misdirects itself.

The case and the decision

The claimant was the employer's general manager for the Middle East. He came to the UAE in 2006, set up the company's establishment in the Ras Al Khaimah Free Zone, acted as its authorised representative, and worked there until July 2010 under a contract dated 27 April 2006. In November 2011 he sued in the RAK labour court for his employment entitlements. The employer, part of a group whose parent company was in Ireland, disputed the jurisdiction of the UAE courts. In an earlier appeal (No. 70 of 9 JY) the Court of Cassation had quashed a ruling on that issue and remitted the case. In this second appeal the Court held that UAE courts have jurisdiction over claims brought against a foreign defendant with no domicile or residence in the UAE whenever the dispute concerns an obligation performed in the UAE, and any agreement to the contrary is void. As the contract had been performed in Ras Al Khaimah, where the claimant worked for the employer at its free-zone establishment, disputes arising from it fell within the jurisdiction of the RAK courts. The Court also held that identifying the proper defendant is a question of fact for the trial court; the claimant could have sued either the parent in Ireland or its RAK free-zone establishment. However, on arbitrary dismissal, leave pay and end-of-service gratuity, the Court of Appeal had not examined whether the claimant had asked for his leave allowance or whether he had worked through his annual leave several times without his consent, a defence that could change the outcome. The judgment was quashed on those points and, since the first appeal had concerned only jurisdiction, the case was remitted.

Laws applied

In the court’s words

“بطلان. عمال. قانون " تطبيقه ". موطن. نقض " أسباب الطعن. ما لا يقبل منها".”

Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.

Related judgments