Category: Intel

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.

The Public Prosecution sued an employer as a criminal action for failing to compensate employees on a 2-week on 2-week off rotation work system for working on official holidays and rest days. The court held that criminal convictions require a high standard for establishing an offence, and depriving employees of national holidays and rest days can be justified in the overall package offered through the 2-week on 2-week off rotational system if it is more advantageous to employees.

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.

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 The Primary Court in Muscat held that specific performance was not possible and ruled that the contract is rescinded, while the Court of Appeal in Muscat ruled specific performance against the seller and ordered him to deliver the property.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.