Real Estate Firm Ordered by Dubai Court to Pay Marketing Company Dhs1.243 Million

This amount includes all outstanding bills for advertising and sales services, planning the grand opening of a property, and statutory interest at a rate of five per cent per annum, computed from the date the legal claim was filed until full settlement. This amount also covers legal fees, expenditures, and court fees.

This lawsuit stems from a real estate project’s marketing and sales agreement that was concluded in April 2025 and granted the plaintiff company exclusive rights for a year.

Marketing would receive 1% of sales value, sales services 7.5%, and there would be additional costs for coordinating the project launch. Contrary to the plaintiff’s assertion that it had fulfilled its contractual responsibilities, the defendant failed to pay the whole amount prior to terminating the agreement in November 2025.

Marketing, sales, and event planning expenses, as well as late payment penalties, totalled Dhs1.3 million, which was sought in the complaint.

To examine the financial records and contractual ties, the court appointed an accountant. The expert’s assessment found the total sum due to be Dhs1.243 million, including Dhs616,000 for project launch activities, Dhs599,000 for sales and marketing services, and Dhs28,000 in delay penalties.

The defendant firm countered by claiming the agreement was illegal and that certain fees and commissions were not owed. They sought to recoup what they believed were overpayments and wanted a separate expert to review the case.

Nevertheless, the court rejected these arguments. It detailed how the contract was intricate, incorporating real estate broking and marketing services, and how the duties and results of the activity, not its name, determined the contract’s actual character. The court approved the plaintiff company’s real estate broking licence, which disproved arguments that the agreement was invalid.

After reviewing the expert’s report and supporting materials, the court found them adequate to resolve the matter. Because the claims for fund recovery were not made in accordance with legal requirements or accompanied by the necessary expenses, it denied the request to send the matter back for further expert study and rejected the claims. After that, the court handed down its ruling.

Also Read:

Tunisia Secures $391 Million Islamic Development Bank Loan for Motorway Project

Israel Supreme Court Clears Arab Parties to Contest October Election