INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(247701, 24185, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignnone size-full wp-image-7963\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7963 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5000\" height=\"1427\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">On 03 May 2018 the UAE enacted Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 (\"the New Law\"), as published in the Official Gazette No 630 of 15 May 2018. The New Law replaced certain arbitration provisions found in the UAE Civil Procedures Law No. 11 of 1992, particularly Articles 203-218 (\"the former arbitration provisions\"). The New Law took effect after a month its publication, accordingly applying from mid-June 2018.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The enactment of the New Law confirms the UAE’s commitment to bring its arbitration law in line with internationally accepted best practice. In this article we consider key provisions of the New Law, with particular focus on the enforcement of arbitration awards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Key Aspects of the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 2 outlines the scope of application of the New Law. It states that it applies to (i) any arbitration conducted in the UAE, unless the parties agree to another law governing the arbitration proceedings; (ii) any international arbitrations conducted outside the UAE, where the parties agree to apply the New Law to govern such proceedings; and (iii) to any arbitration arising from a dispute in respect of a legal relationship governed by UAE law, save where excepted by special provision.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>A significant feature of the New Law is Article 3, which defines ‘international arbitration’. An arbitration is international if ‘the parties have, at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement, their places of business in different States’.</em></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Moreover, an arbitration is deemed to be international, if the place of arbitration, or the place of performance of the contractual obligations, or the subject matter of the dispute is connected with more than one country, or if the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country. This new feature did not exist in the former arbitration provisions and which were limited to domestic and foreign arbitrations only. They did not consider any aspects of international arbitration, even in cases where the domestic arbitration contained elements of international arbitration. The New Law does not, however, confer any additional advantages for international arbitration in terms of the enforcement of an award, as the procedure to ratify an international award is similar to that of domestic awards. The New Law does, however, provide the parties with freedom to choose the New Law to govern the arbitration proceedings, even if the arbitration proceedings are conducted outside the UAE.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Chapter II Article 4 of the New Law deals with the parties’ capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement. Similarly, Articles 5 to 8 of the New Law cover the form, autonomy and subject matter of arbitration agreements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, the New Law defines arbitration institutions and confers wide powers on these institutions if the parties to the arbitration agree to apply arbitration institutional rules. The New Law accordingly covers all types of arbitrations, regardless of it being ad-hoc, institutional or arbitration conducted through the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 11 provides mechanisms where the parties fail to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator/tribunal. Under the former arbitration provisions (Article 204), in such circumstances, parties were required to file a Court application for direction - which was effectively similar to initiating full litigation proceedings. The New Law allows the parties simply to apply to the relevant authority, which is either the body authorized to administer the arbitration, or the Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under the former arbitration provisions the grounds for challenging an arbitrator were similar to the grounds for the recusal or impleading of judges. The New Law, under Articles 14 and 15, changes this - providing specific grounds and procedures for challenging an arbitrator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law recognizes key principles and practices of international commercial arbitration including the principles of severability, Article 6(1), and competence-competence - Article 19(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 21 deals with the jurisdiction of the tribunal to issue interim or conservatory measures concerning arbitration proceedings, at the request of a party or on its own motion.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In contrast to the former arbitration provisions, Article 28 differentiates the ‘place of arbitration’ i.e. the seat of arbitration with which an award is legally connected, and the ‘venue of arbitration’ - where the arbitration sessions or hearings are conducted. Moreover, Article 41(6) provides that an award shall be considered as issued at the place of arbitration, as determined under Article 28, even if the tribunal signed an award outside the place of arbitration. The tribunal may conduct arbitration hearings and deliberations through modern means of communication (according to Article 28(2)(b)). Likewise, Article 35 provides an arbitral tribunal with the discretion to hear any witnesses, including expert witnesses, through modern means of communication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Enforcement of Awards under the New Law</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 52 provides that an award issued under the New Law shall have res judicata status and be enforceable as a court judgment. The same article also states that an award must be ratified prior to its enforcement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Unlike the former arbitration provisions, Article 55(1) states that a party seeking to enforce an award must submit an application to the Chief Justice of the relevant Court, together with supporting documents. The term ‘Court’ is defined as the Federal Court of Appeal or local Courts of Appeal in the UAE. Under Article 55(1), the Chief Justice of the Court (or any judges empowered by the Chief Justice) should issue an order confirming ratification and enforcement of the award within sixty days from the date of the submission of the application, unless any of the grounds for setting aside of the award exists under Article 53(1).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Challenging the Decision against Enforcement of Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Under Article 57, a party may challenge a decision of the Court on the ratification of the award, by filing a grievance before the Court within thirty days. Article 57 reads as follows:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"A grievance may be filed against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement of an arbitral award before the competent Court of Appeal within thirty days from the date following notification\".</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 57 does not confirm whether a decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is to be considered as final or if an aggrieved party could pursue an appeal before the Cassation Court. Considering the New Law does not provide for an appeal of the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ on the grievance presented under Article 57, it is our respectful view that the decision of the ‘competent Court of Appeal’ is likely to be deemed as final. Otherwise, this could lead to lengthy procedures and result in delays of enforcement of awards, which is against the core of objectives of the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Action to set aside Arbitration Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 53 entitles a party to challenge the enforcement of an award by submitting an application before the Court under one or more grounds contained in Articles 53(1)(a) - (h). Further, Article 53(2) states that the Court shall set aside an award if the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement, or if the award is in conflict with public order.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An action to set aside an arbitration award must be submitted by a party within thirty days from the date of notification of such award, otherwise the action will be time barred under Article 54(2).</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Besides the option of filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1), a party seeking to challenge an award may also submit objections to ratifying the award before the Court during the process of ratification in accordance with Article 57. Accordingly, there are three options for a party to challenge the ratification and enforcement of an award:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">file a case seeking to set aside an award under Article 53(1) before the Court of Appeal and this decision is subject to appeal before the Court of Cassation under Article 54(1);</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">present a defence to the Court objecting to the ratification and enforcement of the award during the process of ratification initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1); or</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">submit a grievance against the Court’s decision to grant or deny enforcement under Article 57.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Mechanism to Recognise and Enforce Foreign Awards</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The New Law does not expressly provide for the procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards in the UAE. This begs the question - what procedures are applicable to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE? Should a party seeking recognition apply to the Court of First Instance (the position prior to the enactment of the New Law) or should the parties follow the new procedures for ratifying awards as laid down under the New Law?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Considering that Article 3 of the New York Convention requires Contracting States not to impose substantially more onerous conditions on the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic awards, it is our view that the provisions of the New Law will apply for the recognition and enforcement of foreign awards. Further, the UAE is committed to fulfilling its obligations under applicable international conventions and treaties. It is accordingly inferred that a party seeking recognition of a foreign award should be required to submit an application to the Chief Justice of the Court in accordance with Article 55(1), together with the documents detailed in Article 4 of the New York Convention.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Since the UAE is a signatory to the New York Convention, UAE Courts should take into consideration Article 5, which provides the grounds for refusing recognition of foreign awards, rather than the grounds contained in Article 53(1), as the provisions of the Convention, we suggest, supersede the New Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A party seeking to challenge the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award could submit their defence, objecting to enforcement of the foreign award, to the Court during the ratification process initiated by the award creditor under Article 55(1). However, the option for filling an action to set aside an award under Article 53(1) will not be available for foreign awards, as the UAE Courts do not have jurisdiction, in our view, to set aside foreign awards.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\nThe New Law is undoubtedly a great milestone in the progression of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. It has taken into account the particular features and requirements of international commercial arbitration in the UAE. Thus, the New Law should contribute to making the UAE an arbitration hub in the region. However, certain elements of its enforcement provisions may still require clarity.\r\n\r\n&nbsp;'),
(249046, 24302, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(249047, 24302, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7937&amp;action=edit'),
(249048, 24302, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7968 size-large alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/13-1024x681.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"426\" />The new DIFC Companies Law is expected to come into force in August / September 2018. The new law will make a number of major changes to the rules governing DIFC-established companies, including:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the removal of the category of limited liability companies (as an option to the company limited by shares) and the introduction of differing regulatory requirements imposed on private and public companies respectively; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the introduction of more detailed and explicit provisions imposing and regulating directors’ duties.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This article concerns the most innovative feature of the new law, the introduction of a legal framework for corporate schemes of arrangement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A scheme of arrangement is a process which empowers companies to enter an array of binding arrangements and agreements with its shareholders and/or creditors as classes. Where an arrangement is supported by 75% of the relevant classes of creditors or shareholders, the Court has power to sanction it and to bind all the stakeholders, including any dissenting minority. Schemes of arrangement are used extensively in England and in other common law jurisdictions, so it is a welcome innovation for DIFC companies.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The legal process for schemes of arrangement was originally developed in England but the new DIFC provisions are closely modelled on Jersey law, which is less detailed and prescriptive than the legislation now applying in England and Wales. The DIFC provisions relating to compromises and arrangements can be found in Articles 124 to 126 of the new Companies Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>How are Schemes Commonly Used?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Schemes of arrangement are extremely flexible and the legislation does not restrict the form or content of the compromise or arrangement. Here are a number of examples of how schemes have been employed successfully in the UK:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\"><strong>Reducing debt and carrying out debt for equity swaps</strong></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">Sometimes, a scheme of arrangement can be used to reduce the value of claims from both secured and unsecured creditors. Debt reduction can occur as part of a compromise, where creditors agree to accept a pro-rated percentage of the total debt so the company can continue to be viable. Often, in these circumstances, a creditor will ‘swap’ some of its debt in the company for equity in a new holding company. This reduces the debt of the operating company, allows it to continue trading and provides for a cash injection into the new holding company.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\"><em>For example, in the Countrywide plc case, the company had issued senior secured loan notes worth £470 million which were reduced to £175 million and the holder of the senior secured loan notes agreed to inject capital into a new holding company in return for 35% of the equity in that company. In addition, it was agreed to convert unsecured loan notes worth £170 million to 5% of equity in the new holding company. The proposal was supported by the majority of the loan note holders and so the court approved the agreement.</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em><strong>An alternative to liquidation</strong></em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\"><em>Schemes can also be used as an alternative to a formal liquidation process. The terms of the scheme will prescribe a distribution of the company’s assets between the creditors. This can be helpful when there are a number of contingent claims which may be difficult to quantify and would delay the liquidation process or where assets of a group of companies are difficult to identify as owned by a particular member of a group.</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em><strong>Where the company seeks to assure future solvency by \"ring fencing\" contingent claims</strong></em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">In <em>Re Cape plc &amp; Ors</em>, Cape plc and its subsidiary companies called a meeting of creditors to approve a solvent scheme of arrangement.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">Cape plc’s group business was asbestos mining and the manufacture, distribution and installation of asbestos products. The company was solvent, but faced many future contingent claims due to its employees’ past exposure to asbestos dust. Given the slow emergence of medical problems caused by exposure to asbestos, it was clear that the company would face claims in the future, but at the time of proposing the scheme noone could quantify the value of these claims with precision.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">The scheme of arrangement was designed to protect the group’s ongoing businesses from the asbestos claims, whilst at the same time diverting a percentage of its earnings into a sinking fund for the payment of those claims. The Court approved the proposed scheme, thereby allowing Cape plc to create a subsidiary company to deal with all present and future claims, effectively ring-fencing the rest of the Cape group from the disruptive effect of the claims.</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><strong>Takeovers</strong></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">Schemes of arrangement are used in the UK as an alternative way to implement a company takeover rather than following the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers Takeover Regulations (\"UK Takeover Regulations\"). Consent is only required from 75% of the shareholders for all shareholders to be bound and liable to compulsory acquisition; whereas 90% of the shareholders are required to consent under the UK Takeover Regulations to achieve a ‘squeeze-out’.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">An example of this in practice is the case of TDG plc. There the company applied for an order under the Companies Act 2006 sanctioning a scheme of arrangement, the object of which was to facilitate the acquisition of shares in the company by a buyer. A minority shareholder opposed the approval of the scheme. The scheme was approved by the court as reasonable so all shareholders were bound to transfer their shares to the acquiring company.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">The provisions of the old DIFC Companies law in respect of takeovers contain the same threshold to that of the UK Takeover Regulations (consent of 90% of the shareholders). The introduction of the New Law will enable all shareholders to be bound by the arrangement with only the consent of 75% of the shareholders. This is likely to facilitate takeovers in the DIFC, particularly in circumstances where there are dissenting or ‘lost’ shareholders. The provisions can also be used to implement a ‘squeeze-out’.</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><strong>Demergers</strong></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">In the case of BGEO Group plc the applicant company applied for the court to sanction a scheme of arrangement to split its investment business from its banking business. The scheme involved the insertion of a new holding company and, once the scheme had taken effect, the demerger of the group’s two businesses. The new holding company would undertake a swap reduction of capital for the purpose of demerging the investment business. The shareholder agreed to swap their shares in the applicant company for shares in the new holding company on a one-for-one basis.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Benefits to companies incorporated in the DIFC</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new provisions will open up wide range of flexible options for restructuring debt or equity. In certain scenarios, additional requirements of the DIFC companies law will also need to be taken into account, in particular the rules governing any return of capital to shareholders, so there may need to be parallel compliance.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What types of compromises or arrangements will be approved?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Subject to the required formalities and approvals, schemes can be used to bind all shareholders of the relevant class(es) of creditors and/or shareholders to almost any type of reorganisation. Nothing in the new law limits the subject matter of a scheme. In theory a scheme could be a compromise or arrangement between a company and its creditors or shareholders about anything which they can properly agree amongst themselves.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, a scheme must be a ‘genuine’ and ‘effective’ arrangement or compromise. This means that the shareholders and creditors of the company which participate in the scheme must obtain some advantage in compensation for the scheme’s alteration of their pre-scheme rights entitlements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The procedure</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For a company to obtain a sanctioned compromise or arrangement in accordance with the New Law, the following steps will need to be undertaken:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The person proposing the scheme of arrangement must seek a court order to convene creditor and/or shareholder meetings (as relevant) in order to vote on the proposed scheme;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The notice calling for the meeting whether by letter or advertisement, must include a statement containing details of; (i) the effect of the proposed compromise or arrangements, (ii) material interests of the directors of the company in the arrangement, (iii) if any debentures have been issued by the company how the arrangement or compromise would affect the rights of the debenture holders; and (iv) any other matter which would have a material impact on the company, its creditors and shareholder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Compromise or arrangement schemes require approval by at least 75% in value of each class of the creditors who vote on the compromise or arrangements or the holders of 75% of the voting rights of the shareholders or class of shareholders, as the case may be, present and voting either in person or by proxy at the meeting;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">After the scheme has been approved by the shareholders or creditor, it must then be sanctioned by the court;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any interested shareholder or creditor can be represented when the court considers the application to sanction the scheme, and may argue for or against the sanctioning of the scheme.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">A copy of the court order must then be sent to the Registrar and the Registrar will ensure that a copy of the court order is included in the company’s articles of association.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for a scheme of arrangement can be made by the company, a creditor or shareholder or in the case of a company being wound up its liquidator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The introduction of schemes of arrangement in the DIFC paves the way to greater flexibility in implementing a range of sophisticated deals within the DIFC from equity swaps, to demergers, to corporate turnarounds.</p>\r\n<em>Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Corporate and Commercial team regularly advises on restructuring and take over arrangements. For further information please contact Anna Robinson, a.robinson@tamimi.com or Richard Catling, r.catling@tamimi.com.</em>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7968  alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/13-1024x681.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"487\" height=\"324\" />The new DIFC Companies Law is expected to come into force in August / September 2018. The new law will make a number of major changes to the rules governing DIFC-established companies, including:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the removal of the category of limited liability companies (as an option to the company limited by shares) and the introduction of differing regulatory requirements imposed on private and public companies respectively; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the introduction of more detailed and explicit provisions imposing and regulating directors’ duties.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This article concerns the most innovative feature of the new law, the introduction of a legal framework for corporate schemes of arrangement.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">A scheme of arrangement is a process which empowers companies to enter an array of binding arrangements and agreements with its shareholders and/or creditors as classes. Where an arrangement is supported by 75% of the relevant classes of creditors or shareholders, the Court has power to sanction it and to bind all the stakeholders, including any dissenting minority. Schemes of arrangement are used extensively in England and in other common law jurisdictions, so it is a welcome innovation for DIFC companies.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The legal process for schemes of arrangement was originally developed in England but the new DIFC provisions are closely modelled on Jersey law, which is less detailed and prescriptive than the legislation now applying in England and Wales. The DIFC provisions relating to compromises and arrangements can be found in Articles 124 to 126 of the new Companies Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>How are Schemes Commonly Used?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Schemes of arrangement are extremely flexible and the legislation does not restrict the form or content of the compromise or arrangement. Here are a number of examples of how schemes have been employed successfully in the UK:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\"><strong>Reducing debt and carrying out debt for equity swaps</strong></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">Sometimes, a scheme of arrangement can be used to reduce the value of claims from both secured and unsecured creditors. Debt reduction can occur as part of a compromise, where creditors agree to accept a pro-rated percentage of the total debt so the company can continue to be viable. Often, in these circumstances, a creditor will ‘swap’ some of its debt in the company for equity in a new holding company. This reduces the debt of the operating company, allows it to continue trading and provides for a cash injection into the new holding company.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\"><em>For example, in the Countrywide plc case, the company had issued senior secured loan notes worth £470 million which were reduced to £175 million and the holder of the senior secured loan notes agreed to inject capital into a new holding company in return for 35% of the equity in that company. In addition, it was agreed to convert unsecured loan notes worth £170 million to 5% of equity in the new holding company. The proposal was supported by the majority of the loan note holders and so the court approved the agreement.</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em><strong>An alternative to liquidation</strong></em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\"><em>Schemes can also be used as an alternative to a formal liquidation process. The terms of the scheme will prescribe a distribution of the company’s assets between the creditors. This can be helpful when there are a number of contingent claims which may be difficult to quantify and would delay the liquidation process or where assets of a group of companies are difficult to identify as owned by a particular member of a group.</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><em><strong>Where the company seeks to assure future solvency by \"ring fencing\" contingent claims</strong></em></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">In <em>Re Cape plc &amp; Ors</em>, Cape plc and its subsidiary companies called a meeting of creditors to approve a solvent scheme of arrangement.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">Cape plc’s group business was asbestos mining and the manufacture, distribution and installation of asbestos products. The company was solvent, but faced many future contingent claims due to its employees’ past exposure to asbestos dust. Given the slow emergence of medical problems caused by exposure to asbestos, it was clear that the company would face claims in the future, but at the time of proposing the scheme noone could quantify the value of these claims with precision.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">The scheme of arrangement was designed to protect the group’s ongoing businesses from the asbestos claims, whilst at the same time diverting a percentage of its earnings into a sinking fund for the payment of those claims. The Court approved the proposed scheme, thereby allowing Cape plc to create a subsidiary company to deal with all present and future claims, effectively ring-fencing the rest of the Cape group from the disruptive effect of the claims.</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><strong>Takeovers</strong></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">Schemes of arrangement are used in the UK as an alternative way to implement a company takeover rather than following the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers Takeover Regulations (\"UK Takeover Regulations\"). Consent is only required from 75% of the shareholders for all shareholders to be bound and liable to compulsory acquisition; whereas 90% of the shareholders are required to consent under the UK Takeover Regulations to achieve a ‘squeeze-out’.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">An example of this in practice is the case of TDG plc. There the company applied for an order under the Companies Act 2006 sanctioning a scheme of arrangement, the object of which was to facilitate the acquisition of shares in the company by a buyer. A minority shareholder opposed the approval of the scheme. The scheme was approved by the court as reasonable so all shareholders were bound to transfer their shares to the acquiring company.</p>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">The provisions of the old DIFC Companies law in respect of takeovers contain the same threshold to that of the UK Takeover Regulations (consent of 90% of the shareholders). The introduction of the New Law will enable all shareholders to be bound by the arrangement with only the consent of 75% of the shareholders. This is likely to facilitate takeovers in the DIFC, particularly in circumstances where there are dissenting or ‘lost’ shareholders. The provisions can also be used to implement a ‘squeeze-out’.</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li><strong>Demergers</strong></li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p style=\"padding-left: 60px;\">In the case of BGEO Group plc the applicant company applied for the court to sanction a scheme of arrangement to split its investment business from its banking business. The scheme involved the insertion of a new holding company and, once the scheme had taken effect, the demerger of the group’s two businesses. The new holding company would undertake a swap reduction of capital for the purpose of demerging the investment business. The shareholder agreed to swap their shares in the applicant company for shares in the new holding company on a one-for-one basis.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Benefits to companies incorporated in the DIFC</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The new provisions will open up wide range of flexible options for restructuring debt or equity. In certain scenarios, additional requirements of the DIFC companies law will also need to be taken into account, in particular the rules governing any return of capital to shareholders, so there may need to be parallel compliance.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>What types of compromises or arrangements will be approved?</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Subject to the required formalities and approvals, schemes can be used to bind all shareholders of the relevant class(es) of creditors and/or shareholders to almost any type of reorganisation. Nothing in the new law limits the subject matter of a scheme. In theory a scheme could be a compromise or arrangement between a company and its creditors or shareholders about anything which they can properly agree amongst themselves.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, a scheme must be a ‘genuine’ and ‘effective’ arrangement or compromise. This means that the shareholders and creditors of the company which participate in the scheme must obtain some advantage in compensation for the scheme’s alteration of their pre-scheme rights entitlements.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The procedure</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">For a company to obtain a sanctioned compromise or arrangement in accordance with the New Law, the following steps will need to be undertaken:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The person proposing the scheme of arrangement must seek a court order to convene creditor and/or shareholder meetings (as relevant) in order to vote on the proposed scheme;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The notice calling for the meeting whether by letter or advertisement, must include a statement containing details of; (i) the effect of the proposed compromise or arrangements, (ii) material interests of the directors of the company in the arrangement, (iii) if any debentures have been issued by the company how the arrangement or compromise would affect the rights of the debenture holders; and (iv) any other matter which would have a material impact on the company, its creditors and shareholder.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Compromise or arrangement schemes require approval by at least 75% in value of each class of the creditors who vote on the compromise or arrangements or the holders of 75% of the voting rights of the shareholders or class of shareholders, as the case may be, present and voting either in person or by proxy at the meeting;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">After the scheme has been approved by the shareholders or creditor, it must then be sanctioned by the court;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any interested shareholder or creditor can be represented when the court considers the application to sanction the scheme, and may argue for or against the sanctioning of the scheme.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">A copy of the court order must then be sent to the Registrar and the Registrar will ensure that a copy of the court order is included in the company’s articles of association.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Applications for a scheme of arrangement can be made by the company, a creditor or shareholder or in the case of a company being wound up its liquidator.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The introduction of schemes of arrangement in the DIFC paves the way to greater flexibility in implementing a range of sophisticated deals within the DIFC from equity swaps, to demergers, to corporate turnarounds.</p>\r\n<em>Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s Corporate and Commercial team regularly advises on restructuring and take over arrangements. For further information please contact Anna Robinson, a.robinson@tamimi.com or Richard Catling, r.catling@tamimi.com.</em>'),
(249049, 24302, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249050, 24302, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249051, 24302, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249052, 24302, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249053, 24303, 'PostID', '7937'),
(249054, 24303, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(249055, 24303, 'PostTitle', 'Now Coming to the DIFC: The Infinitely Flexible and Versatile Corporate Scheme of Arrangement'),
(249056, 24303, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(249057, 24303, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:33:04'),
(249058, 24303, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7937'),
(249059, 24303, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7937&amp;action=edit'),
(249060, 24303, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249061, 24303, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249062, 24303, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249063, 24303, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249064, 24304, 'PostID', '7935'),
(249065, 24304, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(249066, 24304, 'PostTitle', 'Overhaul of the UAE Finance Companies Regulations'),
(249067, 24304, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(249068, 24304, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:33:06'),
(249069, 24304, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7935');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(249070, 24304, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7935&amp;action=edit'),
(249071, 24304, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249072, 24304, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249073, 24304, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249074, 24304, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249075, 24305, 'PostID', '7937'),
(249076, 24305, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(249077, 24305, 'PostTitle', 'Now Coming to the DIFC: The Infinitely Flexible and Versatile Corporate Scheme of Arrangement'),
(249078, 24305, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(249079, 24305, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:33:08'),
(249080, 24305, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7937'),
(249081, 24305, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7937&amp;action=edit'),
(249082, 24305, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249083, 24305, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249084, 24305, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249085, 24305, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249086, 24306, 'PostID', '5'),
(249087, 24306, 'PostType', 'page'),
(249088, 24306, 'PostTitle', 'Home'),
(249089, 24306, 'PostStatus', 'publish'),
(249090, 24306, 'PostDate', '2017-09-06 07:15:00'),
(249091, 24306, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/'),
(249092, 24306, 'EditorLinkPost', 'http://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=5&amp;action=edit'),
(249093, 24306, 'ClientIP', '83.111.236.141'),
(249094, 24306, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko'),
(249095, 24306, 'CurrentUserID', '5'),
(249096, 24306, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249097, 24307, 'AttachmentID', '8000'),
(249098, 24307, 'FileName', '15-1.jpg'),
(249099, 24307, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249100, 24307, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249101, 24307, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249102, 24307, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249103, 24307, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249104, 24308, 'AttachmentID', '8001'),
(249105, 24308, 'FileName', '16.jpg'),
(249106, 24308, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249107, 24308, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249108, 24308, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249109, 24308, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249110, 24308, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249111, 24309, 'AttachmentID', '7978'),
(249112, 24309, 'FileName', 'shutterstock_421751620.jpg'),
(249113, 24309, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249114, 24309, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249115, 24309, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249116, 24309, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249117, 24309, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249118, 24310, 'AttachmentID', '8002'),
(249119, 24310, 'FileName', '17-1.png'),
(249120, 24310, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249121, 24310, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249122, 24310, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249123, 24310, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249124, 24310, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249125, 24311, 'AttachmentID', '8003'),
(249126, 24311, 'FileName', '18.png'),
(249127, 24311, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249128, 24311, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249129, 24311, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249130, 24311, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249131, 24311, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249132, 24312, 'AttachmentID', '7976'),
(249133, 24312, 'FileName', 'shutterstock_56850712.jpg'),
(249134, 24312, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249135, 24312, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249136, 24312, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249137, 24312, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249138, 24312, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249139, 24313, 'AttachmentID', '7975'),
(249140, 24313, 'FileName', '22.jpg'),
(249141, 24313, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249142, 24313, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249143, 24313, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249144, 24313, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249145, 24313, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249146, 24314, 'AttachmentID', '7974'),
(249147, 24314, 'FileName', '20.jpg'),
(249148, 24314, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249149, 24314, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249150, 24314, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249151, 24314, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249152, 24314, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249153, 24315, 'AttachmentID', '7972'),
(249154, 24315, 'FileName', '17.png'),
(249155, 24315, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249156, 24315, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249157, 24315, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249158, 24315, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249159, 24315, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249160, 24316, 'AttachmentID', '8004'),
(249161, 24316, 'FileName', '20.jpg'),
(249162, 24316, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249163, 24316, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249164, 24316, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249165, 24316, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249166, 24316, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249167, 24317, 'AttachmentID', '8005'),
(249168, 24317, 'FileName', '21.jpg'),
(249169, 24317, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249170, 24317, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249171, 24317, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249172, 24317, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249173, 24317, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249174, 24318, 'AttachmentID', '8006'),
(249175, 24318, 'FileName', 'shutterstock_56850712.jpg'),
(249176, 24318, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249177, 24318, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249178, 24318, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249179, 24318, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249180, 24318, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249181, 24319, 'PostID', '7935'),
(249182, 24319, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(249183, 24319, 'PostTitle', 'Overhaul of the UAE Finance Companies Regulations'),
(249184, 24319, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(249185, 24319, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:32:40'),
(249186, 24319, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7935'),
(249187, 24319, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7935&amp;action=edit'),
(249188, 24319, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249189, 24319, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249190, 24319, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249191, 24319, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249192, 24320, 'PostID', '7935'),
(249193, 24320, 'PostTitle', 'Overhaul of the UAE Finance Companies Regulations'),
(249194, 24320, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(249195, 24320, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(249196, 24320, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:35:33'),
(249197, 24320, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7935'),
(249198, 24320, 'MetaID', '223050'),
(249199, 24320, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(249200, 24320, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-7994 size-full\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/11.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5472\" height=\"845\" />Amongst the several new laws and regulations being introduced in the UAE, the UAE Central Bank (\"Central Bank\") has on10 May 2018 issued new Finance Company Regulations (\"Regulations\" or \"2018 Regulations\") which are to come into effect one month after its publication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations replace the previous finance company regulations issued in 1996 and finance companies regulations for companies conducting business as per Islamic sharia’a principles issued in 2004 (\"Previous Regulations\") and aim at providing a detailed regulatory framework for Finance Companies to operate and develop within the UAE and also covers in its ambit the framework for protecting the customers of such Finance Companies.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations consolidate the regulations for both Islamic finance and conventional finance companies (\"Finance Company/ies\") and incorporate certain significant changes including changes to capital requirements and corporate governance, to also be followed by existing Finance Companies. We have set out below certain noteworthy features of these Regulations and a comparative table on the key changes from the Previous Regulations on subject.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>License Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Pursuant to these Regulations, conducting financing activities in the UAE without a central bank license is prohibited. An application for such license must include the proposed scope of activities, a feasibility study illustrating the financial activities and products to be launched, estimated financial projections, risk factors, corporate structure, start-up costs, branches and a recruitment plan.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Another important requisite is for the applicant to provide an unconditional guarantee from a UAE Bank, in favour of the Central Bank for an amount equivalent to the minimum required paid-up capital. The License will be granted for a period of three years and may be renewable for the same period unless otherwise required by the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Any changes to the ownership of the Finance Company of 5% or more will require prior approval from the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Cancelling or Revoking a License</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Central Bank has the discretion to approve or refuse the License application, but must notify applicants in writing with reasons in case there is a refusal. Licenses can also be amended, revoked or cancelled at the discretion of the Board. The Regulations set out instances when the license can be cancelled which include providing false/misleading information, risking interests of the potential customers, or if there is a bankruptcy order filed against the Finance Company.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">If a Finance Company wishes to cease operations it must apply to the Central Bank at least six months in advance providing the reasons for such a cessation or suspension.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Regulations also provide for penalties that will be imposed if such company does not follow the provisions of the Regulations including adhering to the anti-money laundering policies laid down by the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Permitted Activities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 10.1 of the Regulation details out the types of activities that are permitted, which are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Retail finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">mortgage finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">wholesale finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">pre-paid cards, and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">distribution of third party products.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Central Bank can review and amend this list from time to time.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 10 further sets out the do’s and dont’s in relation to the business of the Finance Company, certain key features are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it can extend loans only to ‘Juridicial Persons’ (defined under Article 93 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law) and individuals in the UAE. However, it is prohibited from accepting deposits or loans from individuals.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it may accept deposits only from Juridicial Persons, subject to certain conditions laid out under Article 10.4 and also borrow from UAE banks, and may even receive foreign funding provided that its risk has been adequately hedged. In doing so it must not exceed 25% of the sum of total amount of its debt capital.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it must obtain a no objection letter from the Central Bank in order to provide any new product line from within activities specified in its license.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it may only participate in the share capital of brokerage companies, money exchanges, UAE banks and other Finance Companies. Any such single participation cannot exceed 10% of its debt capital and the aggregate participation must not exceed 25% of the debt capital.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">It must obtain approval from the Central Bank in order to issue bonds or sukuks. Such bonds and sukuks shall only be denominated in UAE dirhams or US Dollars.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it is prohibited from financing a borrower which is not an entity incorporated in the UAE or its free zones, or a UAE resident, or where the mortgaged assets are not in the UAE.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it is prohibited from entering into the business of money exchange.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it must not purchase immovable properties unless for its own use or specific approval for the same has been obtained from the Central Bank. This rule does not apply to Islamic Finance Companies (IFC). IFCs may own property including immovable property and goods as part of an underlying financing contract with a borrower.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Minimum Capital, Liquidity Requirements and Credit Exposure Restrictions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The minimum paid-up capital for a Finance Company is 150 million UAE Dirhams. UAE national ownership of the Finance Company must comprise at least 60% of total paid-up capital. Finance Companies must also allocate at least 10% of annual net profits to establishing a statutory reserve until the reserve equals 50% of its paid-up capital.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To withstand short-term liquidity stress, Finance Companies are required to hold an amount equivalent to 10% of their aggregate liabilities in liquid assets i.e. cash held in UAE bank, Certificates of deposit issued by the Central Bank held via a UAE bank, short term deposits with a UAE bank with maturity upto 30 days and UAE federal and local government bonds, which must not exceed 30% of the total liquid assets. For the purpose of calculating the 10% amount, a Finance Company may deduct from its aggregate liabilities, cash collateral, bank guarantees from UAE banks and sovereign guarantees.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The credit exposure is considered ‘large’ if the value of such exposure to one borrower or group of related entities is 7% or more. The Regulations set out maximum exposure limits for different borrower types.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Organisational Structure, Composition and Policies of the Finance Company</strong></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Founding shareholders - Founding shareholders must satisfy \"Fit and Proper\" criteria as defined by the Central Bank and their appointment must be in line with the Commercial Companies Law<strong>.</strong></li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Board of Directors - The board of directors of a Finance Company must have no fewer than five members. Atleast 60% of the board members of an IFC must have knowledge of the banking business or Islamic finance and banking business as the case may be. The Regulations provide for detailed selection processes and guidances in relation to the board of directors</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Sharia’a Supervision Committee and other committees - An IFC must have a Sharia’a Supervision Committee, and its role must be laid out in the policies of the IFC. Finance Companies must also have a board committee and credit committee.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Senior Management – Finance Companies must comply with the ‘fit and proper‘ test set out by the Central Bank and must be professional who understands the business of finance and was experience of not less than 10 years in the field of finance. Person within the senior management cannot be a part of the board.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Corporate Governance - While the Regulations set out certain minimum requirements for corporate governance, Finance Companies are permitted to set out their own policies and framework for corporate governance (complying with the Regulations), however these must be approved by its board of directors and a copy of such policies must be provided to the Central Bank.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Internal Policies – the Regulations set out the requirements that need to be adhered to by Finance Companies and IFC with respect to its internal polices in relation to management, risk management, extension of credit, compliance, information technology, security, audit, remuneration, outsourcing, etc.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Other provisions</strong></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Consumer Protection: the Name of the finance company must not include the words \"bank\", \"investment company\" or and other term which may mislead its customer. It must provide its customers with sufficient information regarding its products, etc. in order for them to be able to make an informed decision. The Finance Company must follow the Central Bank guidelines in relation to ‘Consumer Protection’.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Credit Reports - Every Finance Company must adhere to the credit reporting requirements of the Al Etihad Credit Bureau and other credit agencies to provide to and obtain information of the Borrower.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Accounting Standards - A Finance Company must implement all applicable International Accounting Standards/International Financial Reporting Standards and provide the Central Bank with two copies of signed audited financial statements, including external auditor reports, before 31st March every year. The Central Bank may require the Finance Company to appoint another auditor if the size and nature of the business of the Finance Company so requires.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Differences in the new Regulations from the Previous Regulations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The 2018 Regulations are far more detailed in the nature of investments permitted, liquidity requirements, organisational structure to be followed, investor guidance; we have set out below certain differences in the provisions between the Previous Regulations and 2018 Regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7997 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.23.26-PM.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"548\" height=\"507\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations apply to all Finance Companies. Accordingly companies licensed prior to the date of the issuance of these Regulations need to comply with the 2018 Regulations and are given a period not exceeding 3 years from the publication to conform. However, the Central Bank may amend the requirement of compliance within 3 years if it deems the finance company to be substantially in compliance with these Regulations. All existing Finance Companies will require to provide the Central Bank with a detailed adjustment plan to comply with the articles of these Regulations.</p>\r\nAl Tamimi &amp; Company’s Banking and Finance team regularly advises on the Finance Company Regulations. For further information please contact Mark Brown (m.brown@tamimi.com) or Maymoona Talib (m.talib@tamimi.com).'),
(249201, 24320, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-7994 size-full\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/11.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5472\" height=\"845\" />Amongst the several new laws and regulations being introduced in the UAE, the UAE Central Bank (\"Central Bank\") has on10 May 2018 issued new Finance Company Regulations (\"Regulations\" or \"2018 Regulations\") which are to come into effect one month after its publication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations replace the previous finance company regulations issued in 1996 and finance companies regulations for companies conducting business as per Islamic sharia’a principles issued in 2004 (\"Previous Regulations\") and aim at providing a detailed regulatory framework for Finance Companies to operate and develop within the UAE and also covers in its ambit the framework for protecting the customers of such Finance Companies.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations consolidate the regulations for both Islamic finance and conventional finance companies (\"Finance Company/ies\") and incorporate certain significant changes including changes to capital requirements and corporate governance, to also be followed by existing Finance Companies. We have set out below certain noteworthy features of these Regulations and a comparative table on the key changes from the Previous Regulations on subject.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>License Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Pursuant to these Regulations, conducting financing activities in the UAE without a central bank license is prohibited. An application for such license must include the proposed scope of activities, a feasibility study illustrating the financial activities and products to be launched, estimated financial projections, risk factors, corporate structure, start-up costs, branches and a recruitment plan.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Another important requisite is for the applicant to provide an unconditional guarantee from a UAE Bank, in favour of the Central Bank for an amount equivalent to the minimum required paid-up capital. The License will be granted for a period of three years and may be renewable for the same period unless otherwise required by the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Any changes to the ownership of the Finance Company of 5% or more will require prior approval from the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Cancelling or Revoking a License</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Central Bank has the discretion to approve or refuse the License application, but must notify applicants in writing with reasons in case there is a refusal. Licenses can also be amended, revoked or cancelled at the discretion of the Board. The Regulations set out instances when the license can be cancelled which include providing false/misleading information, risking interests of the potential customers, or if there is a bankruptcy order filed against the Finance Company.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">If a Finance Company wishes to cease operations it must apply to the Central Bank at least six months in advance providing the reasons for such a cessation or suspension.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Regulations also provide for penalties that will be imposed if such company does not follow the provisions of the Regulations including adhering to the anti-money laundering policies laid down by the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Permitted Activities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 10.1 of the Regulation details out the types of activities that are permitted, which are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Retail finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">mortgage finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">wholesale finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">pre-paid cards, and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">distribution of third party products.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Central Bank can review and amend this list from time to time.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 10 further sets out the do’s and dont’s in relation to the business of the Finance Company, certain key features are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it can extend loans only to ‘Juridicial Persons’ (defined under Article 93 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law) and individuals in the UAE. However, it is prohibited from accepting deposits or loans from individuals.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it may accept deposits only from Juridicial Persons, subject to certain conditions laid out under Article 10.4 and also borrow from UAE banks, and may even receive foreign funding provided that its risk has been adequately hedged. In doing so it must not exceed 25% of the sum of total amount of its debt capital.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it must obtain a no objection letter from the Central Bank in order to provide any new product line from within activities specified in its license.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it may only participate in the share capital of brokerage companies, money exchanges, UAE banks and other Finance Companies. Any such single participation cannot exceed 10% of its debt capital and the aggregate participation must not exceed 25% of the debt capital.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">It must obtain approval from the Central Bank in order to issue bonds or sukuks. Such bonds and sukuks shall only be denominated in UAE dirhams or US Dollars.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it is prohibited from financing a borrower which is not an entity incorporated in the UAE or its free zones, or a UAE resident, or where the mortgaged assets are not in the UAE.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it is prohibited from entering into the business of money exchange.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it must not purchase immovable properties unless for its own use or specific approval for the same has been obtained from the Central Bank. This rule does not apply to Islamic Finance Companies (IFC). IFCs may own property including immovable property and goods as part of an underlying financing contract with a borrower.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Minimum Capital, Liquidity Requirements and Credit Exposure Restrictions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The minimum paid-up capital for a Finance Company is 150 million UAE Dirhams. UAE national ownership of the Finance Company must comprise at least 60% of total paid-up capital. Finance Companies must also allocate at least 10% of annual net profits to establishing a statutory reserve until the reserve equals 50% of its paid-up capital.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To withstand short-term liquidity stress, Finance Companies are required to hold an amount equivalent to 10% of their aggregate liabilities in liquid assets i.e. cash held in UAE bank, Certificates of deposit issued by the Central Bank held via a UAE bank, short term deposits with a UAE bank with maturity upto 30 days and UAE federal and local government bonds, which must not exceed 30% of the total liquid assets. For the purpose of calculating the 10% amount, a Finance Company may deduct from its aggregate liabilities, cash collateral, bank guarantees from UAE banks and sovereign guarantees.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The credit exposure is considered ‘large’ if the value of such exposure to one borrower or group of related entities is 7% or more. The Regulations set out maximum exposure limits for different borrower types.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Organisational Structure, Composition and Policies of the Finance Company</strong></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Founding shareholders - Founding shareholders must satisfy \"Fit and Proper\" criteria as defined by the Central Bank and their appointment must be in line with the Commercial Companies Law<strong>.</strong></li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Board of Directors - The board of directors of a Finance Company must have no fewer than five members. Atleast 60% of the board members of an IFC must have knowledge of the banking business or Islamic finance and banking business as the case may be. The Regulations provide for detailed selection processes and guidances in relation to the board of directors</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Sharia’a Supervision Committee and other committees - An IFC must have a Sharia’a Supervision Committee, and its role must be laid out in the policies of the IFC. Finance Companies must also have a board committee and credit committee.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Senior Management – Finance Companies must comply with the ‘fit and proper‘ test set out by the Central Bank and must be professional who understands the business of finance and was experience of not less than 10 years in the field of finance. Person within the senior management cannot be a part of the board.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Corporate Governance - While the Regulations set out certain minimum requirements for corporate governance, Finance Companies are permitted to set out their own policies and framework for corporate governance (complying with the Regulations), however these must be approved by its board of directors and a copy of such policies must be provided to the Central Bank.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Internal Policies – the Regulations set out the requirements that need to be adhered to by Finance Companies and IFC with respect to its internal polices in relation to management, risk management, extension of credit, compliance, information technology, security, audit, remuneration, outsourcing, etc.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Other provisions</strong></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Consumer Protection: the Name of the finance company must not include the words \"bank\", \"investment company\" or and other term which may mislead its customer. It must provide its customers with sufficient information regarding its products, etc. in order for them to be able to make an informed decision. The Finance Company must follow the Central Bank guidelines in relation to ‘Consumer Protection’.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Credit Reports - Every Finance Company must adhere to the credit reporting requirements of the Al Etihad Credit Bureau and other credit agencies to provide to and obtain information of the Borrower.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Accounting Standards - A Finance Company must implement all applicable International Accounting Standards/International Financial Reporting Standards and provide the Central Bank with two copies of signed audited financial statements, including external auditor reports, before 31st March every year. The Central Bank may require the Finance Company to appoint another auditor if the size and nature of the business of the Finance Company so requires.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Differences in the new Regulations from the Previous Regulations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The 2018 Regulations are far more detailed in the nature of investments permitted, liquidity requirements, organisational structure to be followed, investor guidance; we have set out below certain differences in the provisions between the Previous Regulations and 2018 Regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7997 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.23.26-PM.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"694\" height=\"642\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations apply to all Finance Companies. Accordingly companies licensed prior to the date of the issuance of these Regulations need to comply with the 2018 Regulations and are given a period not exceeding 3 years from the publication to conform. However, the Central Bank may amend the requirement of compliance within 3 years if it deems the finance company to be substantially in compliance with these Regulations. All existing Finance Companies will require to provide the Central Bank with a detailed adjustment plan to comply with the articles of these Regulations.</p>\r\nAl Tamimi &amp; Company’s Banking and Finance team regularly advises on the Finance Company Regulations. For further information please contact Mark Brown (m.brown@tamimi.com) or Maymoona Talib (m.talib@tamimi.com).'),
(249202, 24320, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(249203, 24320, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7935&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(249204, 24320, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-7994 size-full\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/11.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5472\" height=\"845\" />Amongst the several new laws and regulations being introduced in the UAE, the UAE Central Bank (\"Central Bank\") has on10 May 2018 issued new Finance Company Regulations (\"Regulations\" or \"2018 Regulations\") which are to come into effect one month after its publication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations replace the previous finance company regulations issued in 1996 and finance companies regulations for companies conducting business as per Islamic sharia’a principles issued in 2004 (\"Previous Regulations\") and aim at providing a detailed regulatory framework for Finance Companies to operate and develop within the UAE and also covers in its ambit the framework for protecting the customers of such Finance Companies.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations consolidate the regulations for both Islamic finance and conventional finance companies (\"Finance Company/ies\") and incorporate certain significant changes including changes to capital requirements and corporate governance, to also be followed by existing Finance Companies. We have set out below certain noteworthy features of these Regulations and a comparative table on the key changes from the Previous Regulations on subject.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>License Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Pursuant to these Regulations, conducting financing activities in the UAE without a central bank license is prohibited. An application for such license must include the proposed scope of activities, a feasibility study illustrating the financial activities and products to be launched, estimated financial projections, risk factors, corporate structure, start-up costs, branches and a recruitment plan.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Another important requisite is for the applicant to provide an unconditional guarantee from a UAE Bank, in favour of the Central Bank for an amount equivalent to the minimum required paid-up capital. The License will be granted for a period of three years and may be renewable for the same period unless otherwise required by the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Any changes to the ownership of the Finance Company of 5% or more will require prior approval from the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Cancelling or Revoking a License</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Central Bank has the discretion to approve or refuse the License application, but must notify applicants in writing with reasons in case there is a refusal. Licenses can also be amended, revoked or cancelled at the discretion of the Board. The Regulations set out instances when the license can be cancelled which include providing false/misleading information, risking interests of the potential customers, or if there is a bankruptcy order filed against the Finance Company.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">If a Finance Company wishes to cease operations it must apply to the Central Bank at least six months in advance providing the reasons for such a cessation or suspension.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Regulations also provide for penalties that will be imposed if such company does not follow the provisions of the Regulations including adhering to the anti-money laundering policies laid down by the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Permitted Activities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 10.1 of the Regulation details out the types of activities that are permitted, which are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Retail finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">mortgage finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">wholesale finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">pre-paid cards, and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">distribution of third party products.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Central Bank can review and amend this list from time to time.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 10 further sets out the do’s and dont’s in relation to the business of the Finance Company, certain key features are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it can extend loans only to ‘Juridicial Persons’ (defined under Article 93 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law) and individuals in the UAE. However, it is prohibited from accepting deposits or loans from individuals.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it may accept deposits only from Juridicial Persons, subject to certain conditions laid out under Article 10.4 and also borrow from UAE banks, and may even receive foreign funding provided that its risk has been adequately hedged. In doing so it must not exceed 25% of the sum of total amount of its debt capital.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it must obtain a no objection letter from the Central Bank in order to provide any new product line from within activities specified in its license.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it may only participate in the share capital of brokerage companies, money exchanges, UAE banks and other Finance Companies. Any such single participation cannot exceed 10% of its debt capital and the aggregate participation must not exceed 25% of the debt capital.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">It must obtain approval from the Central Bank in order to issue bonds or sukuks. Such bonds and sukuks shall only be denominated in UAE dirhams or US Dollars.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it is prohibited from financing a borrower which is not an entity incorporated in the UAE or its free zones, or a UAE resident, or where the mortgaged assets are not in the UAE.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it is prohibited from entering into the business of money exchange.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it must not purchase immovable properties unless for its own use or specific approval for the same has been obtained from the Central Bank. This rule does not apply to Islamic Finance Companies (IFC). IFCs may own property including immovable property and goods as part of an underlying financing contract with a borrower.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Minimum Capital, Liquidity Requirements and Credit Exposure Restrictions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The minimum paid-up capital for a Finance Company is 150 million UAE Dirhams. UAE national ownership of the Finance Company must comprise at least 60% of total paid-up capital. Finance Companies must also allocate at least 10% of annual net profits to establishing a statutory reserve until the reserve equals 50% of its paid-up capital.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To withstand short-term liquidity stress, Finance Companies are required to hold an amount equivalent to 10% of their aggregate liabilities in liquid assets i.e. cash held in UAE bank, Certificates of deposit issued by the Central Bank held via a UAE bank, short term deposits with a UAE bank with maturity upto 30 days and UAE federal and local government bonds, which must not exceed 30% of the total liquid assets. For the purpose of calculating the 10% amount, a Finance Company may deduct from its aggregate liabilities, cash collateral, bank guarantees from UAE banks and sovereign guarantees.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The credit exposure is considered ‘large’ if the value of such exposure to one borrower or group of related entities is 7% or more. The Regulations set out maximum exposure limits for different borrower types.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Organisational Structure, Composition and Policies of the Finance Company</strong></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Founding shareholders - Founding shareholders must satisfy \"Fit and Proper\" criteria as defined by the Central Bank and their appointment must be in line with the Commercial Companies Law<strong>.</strong></li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Board of Directors - The board of directors of a Finance Company must have no fewer than five members. Atleast 60% of the board members of an IFC must have knowledge of the banking business or Islamic finance and banking business as the case may be. The Regulations provide for detailed selection processes and guidances in relation to the board of directors</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Sharia’a Supervision Committee and other committees - An IFC must have a Sharia’a Supervision Committee, and its role must be laid out in the policies of the IFC. Finance Companies must also have a board committee and credit committee.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Senior Management – Finance Companies must comply with the ‘fit and proper‘ test set out by the Central Bank and must be professional who understands the business of finance and was experience of not less than 10 years in the field of finance. Person within the senior management cannot be a part of the board.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Corporate Governance - While the Regulations set out certain minimum requirements for corporate governance, Finance Companies are permitted to set out their own policies and framework for corporate governance (complying with the Regulations), however these must be approved by its board of directors and a copy of such policies must be provided to the Central Bank.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Internal Policies – the Regulations set out the requirements that need to be adhered to by Finance Companies and IFC with respect to its internal polices in relation to management, risk management, extension of credit, compliance, information technology, security, audit, remuneration, outsourcing, etc.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Other provisions</strong></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Consumer Protection: the Name of the finance company must not include the words \"bank\", \"investment company\" or and other term which may mislead its customer. It must provide its customers with sufficient information regarding its products, etc. in order for them to be able to make an informed decision. The Finance Company must follow the Central Bank guidelines in relation to ‘Consumer Protection’.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Credit Reports - Every Finance Company must adhere to the credit reporting requirements of the Al Etihad Credit Bureau and other credit agencies to provide to and obtain information of the Borrower.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Accounting Standards - A Finance Company must implement all applicable International Accounting Standards/International Financial Reporting Standards and provide the Central Bank with two copies of signed audited financial statements, including external auditor reports, before 31st March every year. The Central Bank may require the Finance Company to appoint another auditor if the size and nature of the business of the Finance Company so requires.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Differences in the new Regulations from the Previous Regulations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The 2018 Regulations are far more detailed in the nature of investments permitted, liquidity requirements, organisational structure to be followed, investor guidance; we have set out below certain differences in the provisions between the Previous Regulations and 2018 Regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7997 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.23.26-PM.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"694\" height=\"642\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations apply to all Finance Companies. Accordingly companies licensed prior to the date of the issuance of these Regulations need to comply with the 2018 Regulations and are given a period not exceeding 3 years from the publication to conform. However, the Central Bank may amend the requirement of compliance within 3 years if it deems the finance company to be substantially in compliance with these Regulations. All existing Finance Companies will require to provide the Central Bank with a detailed adjustment plan to comply with the articles of these Regulations.</p>\r\nAl Tamimi &amp; Company’s Banking and Finance team regularly advises on the Finance Company Regulations. For further information please contact Mark Brown (m.brown@tamimi.com) or Maymoona Talib (m.talib@tamimi.com).|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"alignleft wp-image-7994 size-full\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/11.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"5472\" height=\"845\" />Amongst the several new laws and regulations being introduced in the UAE, the UAE Central Bank (\"Central Bank\") has on10 May 2018 issued new Finance Company Regulations (\"Regulations\" or \"2018 Regulations\") which are to come into effect one month after its publication.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations replace the previous finance company regulations issued in 1996 and finance companies regulations for companies conducting business as per Islamic sharia’a principles issued in 2004 (\"Previous Regulations\") and aim at providing a detailed regulatory framework for Finance Companies to operate and develop within the UAE and also covers in its ambit the framework for protecting the customers of such Finance Companies.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations consolidate the regulations for both Islamic finance and conventional finance companies (\"Finance Company/ies\") and incorporate certain significant changes including changes to capital requirements and corporate governance, to also be followed by existing Finance Companies. We have set out below certain noteworthy features of these Regulations and a comparative table on the key changes from the Previous Regulations on subject.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>License Application</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Pursuant to these Regulations, conducting financing activities in the UAE without a central bank license is prohibited. An application for such license must include the proposed scope of activities, a feasibility study illustrating the financial activities and products to be launched, estimated financial projections, risk factors, corporate structure, start-up costs, branches and a recruitment plan.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Another important requisite is for the applicant to provide an unconditional guarantee from a UAE Bank, in favour of the Central Bank for an amount equivalent to the minimum required paid-up capital. The License will be granted for a period of three years and may be renewable for the same period unless otherwise required by the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Any changes to the ownership of the Finance Company of 5% or more will require prior approval from the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Cancelling or Revoking a License</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Central Bank has the discretion to approve or refuse the License application, but must notify applicants in writing with reasons in case there is a refusal. Licenses can also be amended, revoked or cancelled at the discretion of the Board. The Regulations set out instances when the license can be cancelled which include providing false/misleading information, risking interests of the potential customers, or if there is a bankruptcy order filed against the Finance Company.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">If a Finance Company wishes to cease operations it must apply to the Central Bank at least six months in advance providing the reasons for such a cessation or suspension.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Regulations also provide for penalties that will be imposed if such company does not follow the provisions of the Regulations including adhering to the anti-money laundering policies laid down by the Central Bank.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Permitted Activities</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 10.1 of the Regulation details out the types of activities that are permitted, which are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Retail finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">mortgage finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">wholesale finance,</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">pre-paid cards, and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">distribution of third party products.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Central Bank can review and amend this list from time to time.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 10 further sets out the do’s and dont’s in relation to the business of the Finance Company, certain key features are:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it can extend loans only to ‘Juridicial Persons’ (defined under Article 93 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law) and individuals in the UAE. However, it is prohibited from accepting deposits or loans from individuals.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it may accept deposits only from Juridicial Persons, subject to certain conditions laid out under Article 10.4 and also borrow from UAE banks, and may even receive foreign funding provided that its risk has been adequately hedged. In doing so it must not exceed 25% of the sum of total amount of its debt capital.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it must obtain a no objection letter from the Central Bank in order to provide any new product line from within activities specified in its license.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it may only participate in the share capital of brokerage companies, money exchanges, UAE banks and other Finance Companies. Any such single participation cannot exceed 10% of its debt capital and the aggregate participation must not exceed 25% of the debt capital.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">It must obtain approval from the Central Bank in order to issue bonds or sukuks. Such bonds and sukuks shall only be denominated in UAE dirhams or US Dollars.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it is prohibited from financing a borrower which is not an entity incorporated in the UAE or its free zones, or a UAE resident, or where the mortgaged assets are not in the UAE.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it is prohibited from entering into the business of money exchange.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">it must not purchase immovable properties unless for its own use or specific approval for the same has been obtained from the Central Bank. This rule does not apply to Islamic Finance Companies (IFC). IFCs may own property including immovable property and goods as part of an underlying financing contract with a borrower.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Minimum Capital, Liquidity Requirements and Credit Exposure Restrictions</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The minimum paid-up capital for a Finance Company is 150 million UAE Dirhams. UAE national ownership of the Finance Company must comprise at least 60% of total paid-up capital. Finance Companies must also allocate at least 10% of annual net profits to establishing a statutory reserve until the reserve equals 50% of its paid-up capital.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">To withstand short-term liquidity stress, Finance Companies are required to hold an amount equivalent to 10% of their aggregate liabilities in liquid assets i.e. cash held in UAE bank, Certificates of deposit issued by the Central Bank held via a UAE bank, short term deposits with a UAE bank with maturity upto 30 days and UAE federal and local government bonds, which must not exceed 30% of the total liquid assets. For the purpose of calculating the 10% amount, a Finance Company may deduct from its aggregate liabilities, cash collateral, bank guarantees from UAE banks and sovereign guarantees.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The credit exposure is considered ‘large’ if the value of such exposure to one borrower or group of related entities is 7% or more. The Regulations set out maximum exposure limits for different borrower types.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Organisational Structure, Composition and Policies of the Finance Company</strong></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Founding shareholders - Founding shareholders must satisfy \"Fit and Proper\" criteria as defined by the Central Bank and their appointment must be in line with the Commercial Companies Law<strong>.</strong></li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Board of Directors - The board of directors of a Finance Company must have no fewer than five members. Atleast 60% of the board members of an IFC must have knowledge of the banking business or Islamic finance and banking business as the case may be. The Regulations provide for detailed selection processes and guidances in relation to the board of directors</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Sharia’a Supervision Committee and other committees - An IFC must have a Sharia’a Supervision Committee, and its role must be laid out in the policies of the IFC. Finance Companies must also have a board committee and credit committee.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Senior Management – Finance Companies must comply with the ‘fit and proper‘ test set out by the Central Bank and must be professional who understands the business of finance and was experience of not less than 10 years in the field of finance. Person within the senior management cannot be a part of the board.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Corporate Governance - While the Regulations set out certain minimum requirements for corporate governance, Finance Companies are permitted to set out their own policies and framework for corporate governance (complying with the Regulations), however these must be approved by its board of directors and a copy of such policies must be provided to the Central Bank.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Internal Policies – the Regulations set out the requirements that need to be adhered to by Finance Companies and IFC with respect to its internal polices in relation to management, risk management, extension of credit, compliance, information technology, security, audit, remuneration, outsourcing, etc.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Other provisions</strong></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Consumer Protection: the Name of the finance company must not include the words \"bank\", \"investment company\" or and other term which may mislead its customer. It must provide its customers with sufficient information regarding its products, etc. in order for them to be able to make an informed decision. The Finance Company must follow the Central Bank guidelines in relation to ‘Consumer Protection’.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Credit Reports - Every Finance Company must adhere to the credit reporting requirements of the Al Etihad Credit Bureau and other credit agencies to provide to and obtain information of the Borrower.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Accounting Standards - A Finance Company must implement all applicable International Accounting Standards/International Financial Reporting Standards and provide the Central Bank with two copies of signed audited financial statements, including external auditor reports, before 31st March every year. The Central Bank may require the Finance Company to appoint another auditor if the size and nature of the business of the Finance Company so requires.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Differences in the new Regulations from the Previous Regulations</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The 2018 Regulations are far more detailed in the nature of investments permitted, liquidity requirements, organisational structure to be followed, investor guidance; we have set out below certain differences in the provisions between the Previous Regulations and 2018 Regulations.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"wp-image-7997 aligncenter\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-5.23.26-PM.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"548\" height=\"507\" /></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">These Regulations apply to all Finance Companies. Accordingly companies licensed prior to the date of the issuance of these Regulations need to comply with the 2018 Regulations and are given a period not exceeding 3 years from the publication to conform. However, the Central Bank may amend the requirement of compliance within 3 years if it deems the finance company to be substantially in compliance with these Regulations. All existing Finance Companies will require to provide the Central Bank with a detailed adjustment plan to comply with the articles of these Regulations.</p>\r\nAl Tamimi &amp; Company’s Banking and Finance team regularly advises on the Finance Company Regulations. For further information please contact Mark Brown (m.brown@tamimi.com) or Maymoona Talib (m.talib@tamimi.com).'),
(249251, 24325, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7938&amp;action=edit'),
(249252, 24325, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249253, 24325, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249247, 24325, 'PostTitle', 'UAE continues to lead the way for Foreign Investment'),
(249248, 24325, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(249249, 24325, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 12:28:00'),
(249250, 24325, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7938'),
(249245, 24325, 'PostID', '7938'),
(249246, 24325, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(249242, 24324, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko'),
(249243, 24324, 'CurrentUserID', '5'),
(249244, 24324, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249238, 24324, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 08:33:58'),
(249239, 24324, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law-update&p=7928'),
(249240, 24324, 'EditorLinkPost', 'http://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7928&amp;action=edit'),
(249241, 24324, 'ClientIP', '83.111.236.141'),
(249233, 24323, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249234, 24324, 'PostID', '7928'),
(249235, 24324, 'PostType', 'law-update'),
(249236, 24324, 'PostTitle', 'June - July 2018'),
(249237, 24324, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(249232, 24323, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249230, 24323, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249231, 24323, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249227, 24323, 'AttachmentID', '8008'),
(249228, 24323, 'FileName', 'shutterstock_760467970-Converted-01-1.png'),
(249229, 24323, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(249223, 24322, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249224, 24322, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249225, 24322, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249226, 24322, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249205, 24320, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249206, 24320, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249207, 24320, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249208, 24320, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249209, 24321, 'PostID', '7935'),
(249210, 24321, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(249211, 24321, 'PostTitle', 'Overhaul of the UAE Finance Companies Regulations'),
(249212, 24321, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(249213, 24321, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:35:33'),
(249214, 24321, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7935'),
(249215, 24321, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7935&amp;action=edit'),
(249216, 24321, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(249217, 24321, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(249218, 24321, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(249219, 24321, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(249220, 24322, 'AttachmentID', '8007'),
(249221, 24322, 'FileName', 'shutterstock_421751620.jpg'),
(249222, 24322, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(247702, 24185, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247703, 24185, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247704, 24185, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247705, 24185, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247706, 24186, 'PostID', '7930'),
(247707, 24186, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247708, 24186, 'PostTitle', 'Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
(247709, 24186, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247710, 24186, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 10:04:57'),
(247711, 24186, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7930'),
(247712, 24186, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
(247713, 24186, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247714, 24186, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247715, 24186, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247716, 24186, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247717, 24187, 'PostID', '7930'),
(247718, 24187, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247719, 24187, 'PostTitle', 'Enforcement and Challenges to Arbitral Awards under the New Arbitration Law in the UAE'),
(247720, 24187, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247721, 24187, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 16:59:22'),
(247722, 24187, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7930'),
(247723, 24187, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7930&amp;action=edit'),
(247724, 24187, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247725, 24187, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247726, 24187, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247727, 24187, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247728, 24188, 'AttachmentID', '7982'),
(247729, 24188, 'FileName', '3.jpg'),
(247730, 24188, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(247731, 24188, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247732, 24188, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247733, 24188, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247734, 24188, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247735, 24189, 'PostID', '7932'),
(247736, 24189, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247737, 24189, 'PostTitle', 'Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
(247738, 24189, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247739, 24189, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 10:09:36'),
(247740, 24189, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7932'),
(247741, 24189, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
(247742, 24189, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247743, 24189, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247744, 24189, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247745, 24189, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247746, 24190, 'PostID', '7932'),
(247747, 24190, 'PostTitle', 'Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
(247748, 24190, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247749, 24190, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247750, 24190, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:00:43'),
(247751, 24190, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7932'),
(247752, 24190, 'MetaID', '222896'),
(247753, 24190, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(247754, 24190, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\" wp-image-7982 alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"178\" height=\"1132\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"https://www.tamimi.com/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (a.ghoneim@tamimi.com).'),
(247755, 24190, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"https://www.tamimi.com/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (a.ghoneim@tamimi.com).'),
(247756, 24190, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(247757, 24190, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(247758, 24190, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"https://www.tamimi.com/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (a.ghoneim@tamimi.com).|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\" wp-image-7982 alignright\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/3.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"178\" height=\"1132\" />If an employer decides to terminate a construction contract entered into with a main contractor, and to appoint a new main contractor, will the former main contractor be legally entitled to prevent the employer from appointing the new main contractor, pending the evaluation of the site or it is an absolute right of the employer to appoint a new contractor following the termination of the construction contract?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">We explore in this article whether a main contractor can prevent the appointment of a new main contractor based on our recent experience advising and representing a main contractor before the Dubai Urgent Matters Court (\"<strong>DUMC</strong>\").</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background of dispute</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">An employer entered into a construction contract with a main contractor to construct a number of villas in a prime location in Dubai.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The contract was based on FIDIC (1987) with particular conditions. The main contractor almost completed the project, and was ready to initiate the testing and commissioning for the project. According to the last interim payment certificate, the consultant had certified that around 87% of the main contractor’s works had been successfully completed.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Due to the existence of several disputes between the employer and the contractor relating to the latter’s claim for variations, extension of time, prolongation costs, and overdue payments related to work done on site, the employer terminated the contract. Following the termination, the main contractor applied to DUMC to appoint engineering experts to visit the site, evaluate the percentage of work done, record the status of the work done and scope of the material and equipment on site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The main contractor sought legal representation when the employer tried to evict the main contractor from the site. Following our advice, a notice was served on the employer warning the employer that, among other things, the site status should remain as is until the DUMC appoints an engineering experts’ committee to visit the site and record the work done and material and equipment on site. The notice also made it clear to the employer that no new contactor should enter the site, pending the inspection by the aforesaid engineering experts committee.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The employer opted to disregard the notice, and decided to appoint a new main contractor. Consequently, the employer applied to the appropriate authority in Dubai to substitute the main contractor with another one in the records of the authority.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Al Tamimi &amp; Company, as legal counsel for the main contractor, immediately drafted a request to the DUMC highlighting the following:</p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the certification by the project’s consultant confirmed that construction was approximately 87% completed;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had purportedly terminated the contract, and alleged that the main contractor had breached its contractual obligations;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">following the purported termination, the main contractor had applied to the DUMC to appoint an engineering experts’ committee to record the work done on site and the material and equipment on site;</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had attempted to evict the main contractor from the site, and the employer had accordingly been notified that the site’s status should remain as is and no new main contractor should be appointed until the DUMC appointed engineering experts committee had examined and recorded the works done on site and the material and equipment on site; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">the employer had not responded to the notice, and had applied to the relevant authority to change the main contractor with a new one which would allow this new contractor to enter upon and disturb the site.</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Having regard to the above, the DUMC were requested to issue an order addressed to the relevant authority rejecting the employer’s request to substitute the main contractor with a new one thereby preventing the new main contractor from interfering with the site.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Dubai Urgent Matters Court’s Decision</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The DUMC issued its decision within 72 hours, and accepted Al Tamimi &amp; Company’s request that the site should be left undisturbed pending the appointment of the engineering experts’ committee in accordance with the main contractor’s case before Dubai Court and addressed an order to the relevant authority to suspend the employer’s request to change the main contractor.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Although employers may have the right to terminate a construction contract entered into with the main contractor, an employer should not engage a new main contractor until the work done on site and the material and equipment on site have been recorded by an expert agreed between the parties or appointed by the UAE Courts.</p>\r\nFor further information please contact <a href=\"https://www.tamimi.com/lawyer/ahmad-ghoneim/\">Ahmad Ghoneim</a> (a.ghoneim@tamimi.com).'),
(247759, 24190, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247760, 24190, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247761, 24190, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247762, 24190, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247763, 24191, 'PostID', '7932'),
(247764, 24191, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247765, 24191, 'PostTitle', 'Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
(247766, 24191, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247767, 24191, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:00:43'),
(247768, 24191, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7932'),
(247769, 24191, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
(247770, 24191, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247771, 24191, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247772, 24191, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247773, 24191, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247774, 24192, 'PostID', '7932'),
(247775, 24192, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247776, 24192, 'PostTitle', 'Can a Main Contractor prevent an Employer from appointing a New Main Contractor?'),
(247777, 24192, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247778, 24192, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:00:51'),
(247779, 24192, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7932'),
(247780, 24192, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7932&amp;action=edit'),
(247781, 24192, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247782, 24192, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247783, 24192, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247784, 24192, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247785, 24193, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247786, 24193, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247787, 24193, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247788, 24193, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247789, 24193, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 10:22:15'),
(247790, 24193, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247791, 24193, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247792, 24193, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247793, 24193, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247794, 24193, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247795, 24193, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247796, 24194, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247797, 24194, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247798, 24194, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247799, 24194, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247800, 24194, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:01:29'),
(247801, 24194, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247802, 24194, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(247803, 24194, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(247804, 24194, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7965 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1668\" />Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247805, 24194, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n\r\n<dir><dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n\r\n</dir></dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<dir><dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</dir><i> </i></dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n\r\n<dir><dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n\r\n</dir></dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n\r\n<dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n\r\n</dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247806, 24194, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(247807, 24194, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(247808, 24194, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n\r\n<dir><dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n\r\n</dir></dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<dir><dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n</dir><i> </i></dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n\r\n<dir><dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n\r\n</dir></dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n\r\n<dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n\r\n</dir>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7965 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1668\" />Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247809, 24194, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247810, 24194, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247811, 24194, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247812, 24194, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247813, 24195, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247814, 24195, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247815, 24195, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247816, 24195, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247817, 24195, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:01:29'),
(247818, 24195, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247819, 24195, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247820, 24195, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247821, 24195, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247822, 24195, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247823, 24195, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247824, 24196, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247825, 24196, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247826, 24196, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247827, 24196, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247828, 24196, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:01:36'),
(247829, 24196, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247830, 24196, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247831, 24196, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247832, 24196, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247833, 24196, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247834, 24196, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247835, 24197, 'AttachmentID', '7965'),
(247836, 24197, 'FileName', '4.png'),
(247837, 24197, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(247838, 24197, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247839, 24197, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247840, 24197, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247841, 24197, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247842, 24198, 'AttachmentID', '7985'),
(247843, 24198, 'FileName', '4.png'),
(247844, 24198, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(247845, 24198, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247846, 24198, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247847, 24198, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247848, 24198, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247849, 24199, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247850, 24199, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247851, 24199, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247852, 24199, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247853, 24199, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:03:42'),
(247854, 24199, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247855, 24199, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247856, 24199, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247857, 24199, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247858, 24199, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247859, 24199, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247860, 24200, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247861, 24200, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247862, 24200, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247863, 24200, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247864, 24200, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:01:29'),
(247865, 24200, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247866, 24200, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247867, 24200, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247868, 24200, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247869, 24200, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247870, 24200, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247871, 24201, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247872, 24201, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247873, 24201, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247874, 24201, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247875, 24201, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:03:52'),
(247876, 24201, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247877, 24201, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(247878, 24201, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(247879, 24201, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7985 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1014\" height=\"622\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247880, 24201, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7965 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1668\" />Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247881, 24201, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(247882, 24201, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(247883, 24201, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7965 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1668\" />Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7985 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1014\" height=\"622\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247884, 24201, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247885, 24201, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247886, 24201, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247887, 24201, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247888, 24202, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247889, 24202, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247890, 24202, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247891, 24202, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247892, 24202, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:03:52'),
(247893, 24202, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247894, 24202, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247895, 24202, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247896, 24202, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247897, 24202, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247898, 24202, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247899, 24203, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247900, 24203, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247901, 24203, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247902, 24203, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247903, 24203, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:03:57'),
(247904, 24203, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247905, 24203, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247906, 24203, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247907, 24203, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247908, 24203, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247909, 24203, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247910, 24204, 'AttachmentID', '7985'),
(247911, 24204, 'FileName', '4.png'),
(247912, 24204, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(247913, 24204, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247914, 24204, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247915, 24204, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247916, 24204, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247917, 24205, 'AttachmentID', '7973'),
(247918, 24205, 'FileName', '18.png'),
(247919, 24205, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(247920, 24205, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247921, 24205, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247922, 24205, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247923, 24205, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247924, 24206, 'AttachmentID', '7971'),
(247925, 24206, 'FileName', '16.jpg'),
(247926, 24206, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(247927, 24206, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247928, 24206, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247929, 24206, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247930, 24206, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247931, 24207, 'AttachmentID', '7986'),
(247932, 24207, 'FileName', '74.png'),
(247933, 24207, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(247934, 24207, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247935, 24207, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247936, 24207, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247937, 24207, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247938, 24208, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247939, 24208, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247940, 24208, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247941, 24208, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247942, 24208, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:03:52'),
(247943, 24208, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247944, 24208, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247945, 24208, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247946, 24208, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247947, 24208, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247948, 24208, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247949, 24209, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247950, 24209, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247951, 24209, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247952, 24209, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247953, 24209, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:05:02'),
(247954, 24209, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247955, 24209, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(247956, 24209, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(247957, 24209, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1138\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247958, 24209, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7985 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1014\" height=\"622\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247959, 24209, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(247960, 24209, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(247961, 24209, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"wp-image-7985 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/4.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1014\" height=\"622\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1138\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(247962, 24209, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247963, 24209, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247964, 24209, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247965, 24209, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247966, 24210, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247967, 24210, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247968, 24210, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247969, 24210, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247970, 24210, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:05:02'),
(247971, 24210, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247972, 24210, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247973, 24210, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247974, 24210, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247975, 24210, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247976, 24210, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247977, 24211, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247978, 24211, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247979, 24211, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247980, 24211, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247981, 24211, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:05:09'),
(247982, 24211, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247983, 24211, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247984, 24211, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247985, 24211, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247986, 24211, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247987, 24211, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247988, 24212, 'PostID', '7933'),
(247989, 24212, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(247990, 24212, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(247991, 24212, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(247992, 24212, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:05:02'),
(247993, 24212, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(247994, 24212, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(247995, 24212, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(247996, 24212, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(247997, 24212, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(247998, 24212, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(247999, 24213, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248000, 24213, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248001, 24213, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248002, 24213, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248003, 24213, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:05:48'),
(248004, 24213, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248005, 24213, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(248006, 24213, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(248007, 24213, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<img class=\"size-full wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1138\" />'),
(248008, 24213, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1138\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(248009, 24213, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(248010, 24213, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(248011, 24213, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1138\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<img class=\"size-full wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1138\" />'),
(248012, 24213, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248013, 24213, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248014, 24213, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248015, 24213, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248016, 24214, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248017, 24214, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248018, 24214, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248019, 24214, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248020, 24214, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:05:48'),
(248021, 24214, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248022, 24214, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248023, 24214, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248024, 24214, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248025, 24214, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248026, 24214, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248027, 24215, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248028, 24215, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248029, 24215, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248030, 24215, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248031, 24215, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:05:54'),
(248032, 24215, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248033, 24215, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248034, 24215, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248035, 24215, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248036, 24215, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248037, 24215, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248038, 24216, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248039, 24216, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248040, 24216, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248041, 24216, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248042, 24216, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:05:48'),
(248043, 24216, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248044, 24216, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248045, 24216, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248046, 24216, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248047, 24216, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248048, 24216, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248049, 24217, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248050, 24217, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248051, 24217, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248052, 24217, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248053, 24217, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:06:44'),
(248054, 24217, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248055, 24217, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(248056, 24217, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(248057, 24217, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\" wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(248058, 24217, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<img class=\"size-full wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1138\" />'),
(248059, 24217, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(248060, 24217, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(248061, 24217, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<img class=\"size-full wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3388\" height=\"1138\" />|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\" wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(248062, 24217, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248063, 24217, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248064, 24217, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248065, 24217, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248066, 24218, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248067, 24218, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248068, 24218, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248069, 24218, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248070, 24218, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:06:44'),
(248071, 24218, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248072, 24218, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248073, 24218, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248074, 24218, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248075, 24218, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248076, 24218, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248077, 24219, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248078, 24219, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248079, 24219, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248080, 24219, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248081, 24219, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:06:52'),
(248082, 24219, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248083, 24219, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248084, 24219, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248085, 24219, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248086, 24219, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248087, 24219, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248088, 24220, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248089, 24220, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248090, 24220, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248091, 24220, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248092, 24220, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:06:44'),
(248093, 24220, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248094, 24220, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248095, 24220, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248096, 24220, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248097, 24220, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248098, 24220, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248099, 24221, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248100, 24221, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248101, 24221, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248102, 24221, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248103, 24221, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:06:44'),
(248104, 24221, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248105, 24221, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248106, 24221, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248107, 24221, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248108, 24221, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248109, 24221, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248110, 24222, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248111, 24222, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248112, 24222, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248113, 24222, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248114, 24222, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:07:38'),
(248115, 24222, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248116, 24222, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(248117, 24222, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(248118, 24222, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\" wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7966 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/5.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1875\" /></p>'),
(248119, 24222, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\" wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>'),
(248120, 24222, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(248121, 24222, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
INSERT INTO `tm_wsal_metadata` (`id`, `occurrence_id`, `name`, `value`) VALUES
(248122, 24222, 'ReportText', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\" wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>|<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\" wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7966 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/5.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1875\" /></p>'),
(248123, 24222, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248124, 24222, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248125, 24222, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248126, 24222, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248127, 24223, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248128, 24223, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248129, 24223, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248130, 24223, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248131, 24223, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:07:38'),
(248132, 24223, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248133, 24223, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248134, 24223, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248135, 24223, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248136, 24223, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248137, 24223, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248138, 24224, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248139, 24224, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248140, 24224, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248141, 24224, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248142, 24224, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:07:45'),
(248143, 24224, 'PostUrl', 'https://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248144, 24224, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248145, 24224, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248146, 24224, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248147, 24224, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248148, 24224, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248149, 24225, 'AttachmentID', '7988'),
(248150, 24225, 'FileName', '55.png'),
(248151, 24225, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(248152, 24225, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248153, 24225, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248154, 24225, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248155, 24225, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248156, 24226, 'AttachmentID', '7966'),
(248157, 24226, 'FileName', '5.png'),
(248158, 24226, 'FilePath', '/home/tamimnew/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2018/07'),
(248159, 24226, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248160, 24226, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248161, 24226, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248162, 24226, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248163, 24227, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248164, 24227, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248165, 24227, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248166, 24227, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248167, 24227, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:07:38'),
(248168, 24227, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248169, 24227, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit'),
(248170, 24227, 'ClientIP', '86.98.5.18'),
(248171, 24227, 'UserAgent', 'Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_11_6) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.99 Safari/537.36'),
(248172, 24227, 'CurrentUserID', '8'),
(248173, 24227, 'CurrentUserRoles', 'a:2:{i:0;s:13:\"administrator\";i:1;s:10:\"superadmin\";}'),
(248174, 24228, 'PostID', '7933'),
(248175, 24228, 'PostTitle', 'Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts'),
(248176, 24228, 'PostStatus', 'draft'),
(248177, 24228, 'PostType', 'law_update_articles'),
(248178, 24228, 'PostDate', '2018-07-31 17:08:53'),
(248179, 24228, 'PostUrl', 'http://www.tamimi.com/?post_type=law_update_articles&p=7933'),
(248180, 24228, 'MetaID', '222950'),
(248181, 24228, 'MetaKey', 'content'),
(248182, 24228, 'MetaValueNew', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\" wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7988 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/55.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1011\" /></p>'),
(248183, 24228, 'MetaValueOld', '<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong><img class=\" wp-image-7986 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/74.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1159\" height=\"389\" /></strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Admissibility and Reliability of Electronic Evidence before Qatari courts</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Do the Qatari courts recognize a contractual relationship that results from an electronic transaction? Do the courts regard electronic evidence, such as emails and electronic receipts as admissible and reliable?</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Prior to the recent judgment of the Court of Cassation, the answer to the above questions would be negative. In fact, the Qatari courts had previously dismissed a few cases by denying the admissibility of electronic evidence following a challenge to its validity by the other party. In those cases, the courts held that there was no evidence reflecting the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">However, in reliance on Law No. 16 of 2010 Promulgation of the Electronic Commerce and Transactions Law (\"The Electronic Commerce Law\"), the Court of Cassation has introduced a new principle which is considered to be a turning point for the admissibility and reliability of electronic evidence in litigation cases in Qatar.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Background to the Case</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant had supplied and installed some medical equipment for the Defendant. The Claimant requested the Defendant to pay the outstanding amount for such service. However, the Defendant failed to pay any of the outstanding amounts. The Claimant sent email reminders to the Defendant requesting the Defendant to respect their agreement and pay the outstanding amounts, but the Defendant failed to respond and failed to pay the outstanding amounts.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>The Case at First Instance:</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In 2012, the Claimant filed a civil case against the Defendant claiming the outstanding amount in addition to compensation as result of the non-payment.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Defendant argued that the case must be dismissed, alleging that there was no existing contractual relationship with the Claimant. In addition, the Defendant challenged the validity of the photocopies of the supporting documents submitted by the Claimant to substantiate the case.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of First Instance appointed an expert to review the case. He reported that there was correspondence which proved the existence of the contractual relationship between the parties, in addition to bank statements evidencing the partial payment of the outstanding amount made by the Defendant.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The First Instance Court dismissed the case based on the following grounds:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The absence of evidence proving the existence of the contractual relationship between the Claimant and Defendant.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant’s inability to provide any original documents, all the submitted documentary evidence being photocopies - accepting the Defendant’s challenge to the validity of the same.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Ruling of the Court of Appeal</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant appealed the decision of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the Court of First Instance and dismissed the appeal in 2016.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Judgment of the Court of Cassation</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Claimant challenged the decision of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation. The Claimant relied on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in its reasoning and application of the law on the facts of the case. The Claimant submitted that the Court of Appeal dismissed the case in contradiction of the following documents:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The Claimant submitted documentary evidence such as photocopies of emails to prove the contractual relationship between the parties.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">In addition, the \"copy\" document submitted by the Claimant was only copy of the bank statement to prove that the Defendant had already made partial payment for the outstanding amount due to the Claimant.</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation accepted the Claimant’s argument and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeal and confirmed the following important rules related to the enforcement of The Electronic Commerce Law :</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>1) The validity and the admissibility of the electronic transaction as evidence before the Court.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">In principle, in order for electronic evidence to be admissible before the court, it must:</p>\r\n\r\n<ul>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">First take the form of a data message which, according to Article 1(4) of the Electronic Commerce Law is any type of information that was sent, received, displayed or stored by any means of electronic communications; and</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Secondly, comply with the requirements of Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law, which states the following:</li>\r\n</ul>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"In assessing the evidential weight of information or document in the form of a data message, regard shall be had to the following:</em></p>\r\n\r\n<ol>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the data message was generated, stored or communicated.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the integrity of the Information or document contained in the data message was maintained.\\</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">The processes and circumstances under which the originator of the data message was identified.</li>\r\n 	<li dir=\"LTR\">Any other relevant process or circumstances.\"</li>\r\n</ol>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law requires certainty of the origin of the data message and the identity of its receiver to ensure that the data message was not manipulated by the parties or was not a counterfeit. The court in some cases can appoint specialized experts to verify the accuracy of the data messages. As such, if such requirements are applied, then all electronic transactions made in the form of data message are equal to the written and signed documents, with regards to legal effect and admissibility in the court as reliable evidence.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Further, Article 20(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law explicitly states that any information in the form of a data message is legally admissible before a court, the legal effect of which cannot be denied.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Based on the above principles, the Court of Cassation held that all the information that was in the corresponding emails, the receipts and the bank letters are indeed data messages in terms of Article 1(4) and Article 26 of the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">Therefore, the Court of Cassation ruled that the documents submitted by the Claimant were legally effective and admissible before Court.</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>2) Electronic transactions such as emails are a reliable means to constitute a valid offer and acceptance for the formation of an agreement.</strong></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation held that, as the corresponding emails between the parties showed without a doubt that the parties intended to enter into an agreement, the judge could recognize the offer and acceptance from the electronic correspondence without the need of written documents. The fact that parties had not physically signed an agreement was not imperative. The Court supported its opinion by Article 4(1) of the Electronic Commerce Law which states:</p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><em>\"An offer or acceptance of an offer may be expressed, in whole or in part, by means of electronic communications.\"</em></p>\r\n&nbsp;\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">The Court of Cassation ruled that electronic transactions have become essential as a means of conducting business or entering an agreement. The use of a paperless mechanism has become the most favourable means of communication between parties for expressing their intention to enter an agreement; therefore, it has become essential to regulate electronic transactions by issuing the Electronic Commerce Law.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\">This judgment issued by the Court of Cassation constitutes a reform of the methods of submitting proof before courts. The Court of Cassation gives evidential weight to electronic transactions which is equal to written documents in admissibility and reliability before the Qatari courts. In addition, the content of the electronic transactions can itself provide evidence of formation of binding agreements between parties.</p>\r\n<p dir=\"LTR\" align=\"LEFT\"><img class=\"size-full wp-image-7966 alignleft\" src=\"http://www.tamimi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/5.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"3125\" height=\"1875\" /></p>'),
(248184, 24228, 'MetaLink', 'content'),
(248185, 24228, 'EditorLinkPost', 'https://www.tamimi.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=7933&amp;action=edit');
