Tag: Case and Fatwa Summary

The Supreme Court ruled that the Penal Law only applies to crimes committed within the state's sovereign territory, which includes its territorial waters but excludes the exclusive economic zone. Under international maritime conventions, foreign vessels enjoy freedom of navigation within the exclusive economic zone, meaning their presence there does not constitute illegal entry into Omani territory.

The Supreme Court ruled that funds transferred from an Omani branch of an international law firm to its sister branch are not fully considered as deductible expenses for the purpose of calculating the tax liability of the Omani branch.

The Supreme Court held that a divorce pronounced through modern technological means, such as the WhatsApp application, is legally valid and binding. This falls under the category of divorce by writing, in accordance with article 81 of the Personal Status Law. The court emphasised that explicit written terms of divorce are conclusive, regardless of the sender's claim that they did not intend to actually divorce.

The Supreme Court ruled that the value of valuable cargo must be explicitly declared in the bill of lading to hold a carrier fully liable for its loss. A customs declaration does not substitute this requirement, as the carrier must be notified via the bill of lading to charge the appropriate special carriage fees. Without such declaration, the cargo is treated as ordinary goods, and compensation is limited to weight-based calculations under the Commercial Law.

The Supreme Court held that a tenant is entitled to rescind a lease contract and recover the rent it paid if a decision by the competent authorities prevents the tenant from using the property for the purpose for which it was leased, in accordance with articles 550 and 551 of the Civil Transactions Law.

The Supreme Court held that the criminal misconduct by employees of a policyholder are considered equivalent to third party conduct, and therefore qualify as a basis for making insurance claims by the employer.

The Supreme Court held that where the parties have agreed on their own definition of force majeure, that contractual definition governs, because the Civil Transactions Law does not lay down a precise definition of force majeure. A party therefore cannot invoke force majeure for an event that the contract expressly excludes. The court also held that joining a third party, including a guarantor, to a lawsuit must follow the ordinary procedures for filing a claim, and that a request made only in a defence memorandum or orally at a hearing is insufficient to validly join that party.

In a copyright infringement dispute, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment awarding compensation for copyright infringement due to the failure of the trial court to base the compensation amount on a quantification methodology that takes into account the damage suffered as a result of the copyright infringement.

The Supreme Court ruled that while trial courts have discretionary power to assess compensation for moral and material damages, they must provide detailed, reasoned justifications. For moral damages, the court must explicitly analyse the psychological impact and emotional distress on the victim. For material damages, the court must calculate the compensation based on objective criteria, including actual losses, mitigation expenses, and lost profits.

The Supreme Court ruled that official confirmation by government entities regarding a debtor's lack of assets constitutes sufficient proof of insolvency under article 425(d) of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, thereby relieving the debtor from detention.