Author: Rusul Al-Asfoor

The Supreme Court held that a party harmed by the non-performance of a contract cannot claim both rescission of the contract and payment of the contract price, even in separate proceedings, because paragraph 1 of article 172 of the Civil Transactions Law prohibits combining the two remedies, and doing so would result in one party being enriched at the expense of the other.

The Supreme Court held that when a lawyer files a contestation on behalf of a company, the power of attorney must come from the chairman of the board of directors. If it was instead signed by someone else, such as a board member, the lawyer must also attach the document in which the chairman delegated that person the authority to appoint a lawyer. Without it, the contestation is inadmissible.

The Supreme Court held that an employee's claims to recover money he was forced to pay to his employer, and to be compensated for a false criminal accusation and detention, are civil claims governed by the fifteen-year limitation period of the Civil Transactions Law, and not the one-year limitation period of the Labour Law of 2003, even though they arose in the context of an employment relationship.

The Supreme Court held that an employee who reports his employer's criminal conduct to the competent authorities performs a duty imposed by the Penal Law and does not disclose business secrets within the meaning of the Labour Law of 2003, which only protects secrets whose disclosure would give rise to competition in the employer's field of activity. The court also held that where an employee resigns and rejoins the same employer several months later, the second period is a new employment relationship, and the first period is not counted towards his period of service.

The Supreme Court held that a legal person can only be convicted of a crime committed by its employees if the judgment establishes the conditions laid down in the Penal Law and the Cybercrime Law of 2011, namely that the crime was committed for its account or in its name by a person acting in a managerial or representative capacity, or with its approval, cover-up, or gross negligence. A finding that the employee held a senior position and that the company's controls were weak is not enough. The court also confirmed that obedience to a superior is no defence to a criminal charge: a subordinate is not required to obey an order to commit an act that she knows the law punishes.