Categories
Intel

Case Summary: Supreme Court (Commercial Circuit) Contestation 796/2016 (Insurance Duty of Disclosure)

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.


You do not have a valid subscription to view this content, please view our pricing page to subscribe or login if you already have a new paid account.

Categories
Intel

Case Summary: Supreme Court (Criminal Circuit) 19/2017 (Criminal Liability for Failure to Compensate for Official Holidays)

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.


You do not have a valid subscription to view this content, please view our pricing page to subscribe or login if you already have a new paid account.

Categories
Intel

Case Sumary: Supreme Court (Civil Circuit) 293/2016 (Characteristics of Adhesion Contracts)

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.


You do not have a valid subscription to view this content, please view our pricing page to subscribe or login if you already have a new paid account.

Categories
Intel

Case Summary: Supreme Court (Criminal Circuit) 661/2016 (Public Interest as a Defamation Defence)

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.


You do not have a valid subscription to view this content, please view our pricing page to subscribe or login if you already have a new paid account.

Categories
Intel

Case Summary: Supreme Court (Commercial Circuit) Contestation 380/2016 (Invalidation of Trade Mark Registration) 

 

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.


You do not have a valid subscription to view this content, please view our pricing page to subscribe or login if you already have a new paid account.

Categories
Intel

Case Summary: Supreme Court (Civil Circuit) Contestation 1153/2016

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.


You do not have a valid subscription to view this content, please view our pricing page to subscribe or login if you already have a new paid account.

Categories
Intel

Case Summary: Supreme Court (Civil Circuit) 64/2016 (Objection to Court Jurisdiction Over Dispute Subject to Arbitration Clause)

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.


You do not have a valid subscription to view this content, please view our pricing page to subscribe or login if you already have a new paid account.