Interior fit-out claim dismissed in full

1640 Bistronomy Restaurant LLC (our client, Defendant) vs. Move Fit Out Interior Design LLC (Plaintiff)

Judgment issued 21/05/2026

Outcome

The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s entire claim against our client, finding no proof that the contracted fit-out works were ever executed or delivered.

Court's key findings

Rejected

Full legal breakdown

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

Article 125 — Definition & Binding Nature of a Contract (Civil Transactions Law)

A contract is formed the moment an offer is met with acceptance, creating a binding obligation.

Application:

Without proof of mutual acceptance or execution, no binding contract for the fit-out works was ever established.

Article 272 — Remedies for Breach in Bilateral Contracts

In two-sided contracts, a party who has performed can demand specific performance or termination plus damages from a defaulting counterpart.

Application:

This remedy never triggered here, since the Plaintiff could not prove it had performed any work.

Articles 292 & 389 — Assessment & Estimation of Damages

Compensation must cover actual damage and lost profit directly caused by a breach; where no fixed amount exists, the judge may estimate actual damage.

Application:

With no proven breach, there was no damage for the court to assess.

Articles 872, 877 & 880 (Civil Transactions Law)

An employer is only obligated to pay a contractor upon delivery of the contracted works.

Application:

Since no execution or handover was verified by the court-appointed expert, no legal entitlement to payment ever arose.

Article 88 — Delay Interest on Monetary Obligations (Commercial Transactions Law)

Where a commercial debt is a known, specific sum and payment is delayed, the debtor owes statutory late-payment interest automatically.

Application:

Not triggered — no valid debt was ever established.

Article 76 — Commercial Interest Rates

A creditor may claim interest at the contractually agreed rate, or the prevailing market rate up to a statutory cap of 12%.

Application:

The Plaintiff's requested 5% sat within this cap, but was moot once the underlying claim failed.

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

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 →

Commercial

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

Read the full case →

Facing a similar dispute?

Our team can assess your position and outline the strongest legal path forward.