Category: Intel

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed that the first sale of real estate by the developer in integrated tourism complexes is not exempt from value added tax (VAT).

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed the Corporate Governance Principles for Government-Owned Companies issued by the Capital Market Authority (CMA) to be invalid due to the failure of the CMA to publish such principles in the Official Gazette and the lack of competence of the Executive President of the CMA to issue them. The MJLA also held that companies subordinate to the Oman Investment Authority are not exempt from the scope of such principles.

The Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (MJLA) deemed that the State Audit Institute (SAI) has a duty to release the confidential emails of a third-party held in its possession to support the defence of the government against the claims made by that third-party in an arbitration case.

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.

An employee sued his employer for compensation for unpaid overtime working hours on the basis of two extra hours plus a one-hour break. The Supreme Court held that break time is not calculated as part of unpaid overtime.

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 refused to set aside an arbitral award on the grounds that it had defects outside the grounds identified by the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, even though these defects would have been grounds to set aside an ordinary court judgment.