Author: mohtai

In a contract that was signed before the entry into force of the Value Added Tax Law, the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) held that a contractor was required to pay VAT out of the contract value agreed with the Ministry of Health and that contractor had no basis for adding it as additional charge that the ministry owes to the contractor.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed that the contractor had no rights under a contract it signed with the government due to the failure to comply with the requirements of Royal Decree 48/76 regarding the Signing of Foreign and Domestic Financial Transactions. The MJLA noted in its fatwa that the contractor can take legal action against individuals in their personal capacity whose actions resulted in the contractor suffering harm.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed that the liquidation of a shareholder in a limited liability company does not affect the legal status of the limited liability company.

The Supreme Court held that the failure of the employer to terminate a definite period employment contract before its expiry transformed the contract into a new indefinite period contract.

An employee sued his employer for failing to pay him a cost-of-living allowance that his colleagues receive. The Supreme Court confirmed that it has the power to re-adjust the salary of an employee to match the salaries of other employees in the same organisation in accordance with article 11 of the Labour Law if the employees are working in the same circumstances, have the same qualifications, and agree to the same work conditions. However, the Supreme Court decided that the employee was unable to establish that the facts of his employment met the requirements of article 11 of the Labour Law, and therefore rejected his claims.

The Supreme Court held that the issue of the reliability of a translation accepted by the Court of Appeal in the procedures of the trial is a substantive matter that cannot be contested before the Supreme Court.

A debtor obtained a loan from a bank without disclosing that he was permanently totally disabled. The bank insured the loan after it was given. The court held that the insurer was not responsible for the repayment of the loan because the accident that caused the disability took place before the term of the policy, and the debtor was ordered to repay the loan in full with interest.

A Twitter user was accused of violating the Cybercrime Law by insulting agents of a falaj for their role in depriving a public park of water, which led to the deterioration of the conditions of the park. The Supreme Court ruled that the competing intentions of the perpetrator (protecting public interest vs insulting certain individuals) must be weighed against each other when determining if a crime has taken place. In this case, the Supreme Court refused to overturn the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Nizwa finding him not guilty on the basis that the public interest intention outweighed the insult intention.