Category: Intel

In a dispute between a bank and a corporate client, the Supreme Court held that the standard terms and conditions of the contract signed between a bank and this corporate client do not fulfil the characteristics of an adhesion contract, and therefore these terms and conditions cannot be set aside on this ground.

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.

The Supreme Court confirmed the invalidation of a new trade mark registration due to its similarity to an existing registration. In deciding if the trade marks are similar, the Supreme Court held that one must look at the collective elements of the mark and not individual elements.

The Supreme Court held that Omani courts retain jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a harmful act committed during the execution of a contract, even if the contract assigns jurisdiction to a foreign court, provided the act constitutes a criminal offence and a breach of legal obligations independent of the contract.

The Supreme Court held that either party to a commercial agency contract has the right to terminate the agency or refuse to renew it by its unilateral will. Because a commercial agency, like all other agency contracts, can only be concluded by the mutual consent of both parties, neither party can be forced to remain in the agency relationship against its will, and the remedy of the party affected by the termination is limited to claiming compensation where warranted.

A sale agreement for the purchase of a property stipulated that the agreement automatically terminates in the case of the failure to deliver the property within 160 days from the date of the delivery of the default notification from the buyer. The seller failed to deliver the property on time, so the buyer sued both the seller and the contractor for breach of contract and demanded specific performance. The Primary Court in Muscat held that specific performance was not possible and ruled that the contract is rescinded, while the Court of Appeal in Muscat ruled specific performance against the seller and ordered him to deliver the property. The seller contested the decision at the Supreme Court on the grounds that specific performance was not possible due to a force majeure event, i.e. the failure of government entities to provide electricity and water connections, but the Supreme Court rejected this argument on the grounds that an experienced developer such as the one in this case should have known to plan around government procedures. However, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Court of Appeal did not consider the fact that the buyer had not paid up the full price of the property when ordering specific performance, and accordingly referred the case back to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration.

The Supreme Court established that the jurisdiction to issue temporary or precautionary measures in arbitration disputes lies exclusively with the full panel of the competent Court of Appeal, and not with a single judge. Consequently, any precautionary order issued by a single appellate judge in such matters is considered fundamentally null and void.

In a contractual dispute over rent payments, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal in Sohar cannot, at its own initiative, set aside the judgment of the Primary Court in Suwaiq on the basis that the court has no jurisdiction due to the existence of an arbitration clause in the contract if none of the parties to the dispute raised this as a defence.

The Supreme Court confirmed that all the conditions under article 427 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law must be met for a travel ban to be valid.

The Supreme Court held that a party's right to invoke an arbitration clause is waived if they fail to raise it before submitting any substantive defence on the merits of the case, in accordance with article 13 of the Arbitration Law in Civil and Commercial Disputes.