AED 466,481.90 advance payment ordered returned after seven months of stalled work

Taikun (Plaintiff) vs. Move Fit Out (Defendant)

Outcome

The Court ordered Move Fit Out to return AED 466,481.90 of the advance payment to Taikun, plus 5% legal interest from the filing date, court fees, and professional fees.

Granted to the Plaintiff

Rejected

Full legal breakdown

The specific UAE articles the court relied on, and how each one applied to this case.

Articles 125(1), 130, 131 & 140 — Offer & Acceptance

A contract forms the moment offer and acceptance align; acceptance must perfectly match the offer's terms.

Application: Established the binding nature of the fit-out agreement between the parties.

Articles 872, 873, 877 & 885 — The Muqawala (Construction) Contract

A contractor must perform specified work to agreed specifications and timelines, while the employer pays upon delivery.

Application: The Defendant's total failure to commence any engineering drawings or fit-out work over seven months directly triggered contractual liability.

Articles 113 & 117 (Civil Transactions Law) + Article 1 (Law of Evidence) — Burden of Proof

The burden of proof shifts between litigants as facts are established.

Application: Once the Plaintiff proved it paid the AED 500,000 deposit and no work was done, the burden shifted to the Defendant to prove it had discharged its obligations — which it failed to do.

Articles 243, 246, 265 & 267 — Sanctity of Contracts

A valid contract takes immediate binding effect, must be executed in good faith, and cannot be unilaterally revoked or modified by either party.

Application: Reinforced that Move Fit Out remained bound to perform once the deposit was paid.

Article 421 — Immediate/Absolute Transactions

A contract concluded without a future date or suspensive condition triggers its full legal effects immediately.

Application: Confirmed the Defendant's obligations began immediately upon deposit payment.

Article 338 — Enforcement of Rights / Specific Performance

Once a financial right meets its legal conditions, a defaulting debtor must be compelled to pay or perform via court-enforced specific performance or compensation.

Application: Grounded the court's order for Move Fit Out to return the advance payment.

Articles 203, 490 & 491 — Avoidance of Ambiguity in Sale Contracts

The subject matter of a contract must be explicitly specified and quantified to eliminate gross ambiguity.

Application: Supported the court's clear reading of the parties' obligations.

Article 36 (Civil Procedure Law) — Territorial Jurisdiction

For disputes from supplies, construction contracts, or wages, jurisdiction lies with the court where the defendant is located or where the contract was executed.

Application: Confirmed Dubai Courts' jurisdiction over the matter.

Interest rate — General Panel of the Court of Cassation, Resolution No. 1 of 2021

In the absence of a written interest agreement, the Court of Cassation's General Panel sets the standard default judicial interest rate at 5% per annum, running from the date of filing where the exact due date is unproven.

Application: Interest was set at 5% from the filing date (17 July 2025) rather than an earlier date.

This summary reflects the outcome of this specific matter based on its particular facts and evidence. It does not constitute legal advice and does not guarantee a similar outcome in any other case.

Related case studies

Commercial

Interior fit-out claim dismissed in full

Read the full case →

Labour

Employer ordered to pay AED 184,405 after invalid probation extension

Read the full case →

Real Estate

AED 344,000 earnest money forfeiture upheld after buyers’ withdrawal

Read the full case →