Source: Emirates Today – Abu Dhabi
The Abu Dhabi Commercial Court has ordered a company to pay AED 193,805 to an electronics maintenance firm, after it was proven that maintenance services were provided for computers and electronic devices under approved purchase orders and invoices.
The court affirmed the plaintiff’s right to the claimed amount and awarded late payment interest at 3% per annum until full settlement, while rejecting the statute of limitations defense as the case was filed within the legally prescribed period.
In the details, an electronics maintenance company filed a lawsuit against a commercial company, requesting that it be ordered to pay AED 193,805, along with 5% annual interest from the date of claim until full payment, as well as AED 30,000 in compensation, in addition to court fees, expenses, and legal costs.
The plaintiff stated that, based on the commercial relationship between the two parties through purchase orders, it had provided maintenance services for the defendant’s computers and electronic devices. The amount claimed remained outstanding, and the defendant failed to pay without legal justification.
In response, the defendant’s representative submitted a written memorandum requesting the dismissal of the case on the grounds of statute of limitations, lack of entitlement, and lack of validity and proof.
The court explained in its reasoning that the case documents clearly showed that the defendant company had engaged with the plaintiff through purchase orders and invoices for the provision of maintenance services for computers and electronic devices. The plaintiff carried out the assigned work, and as a result of this business relationship, the claimed amount became due and payable by the defendant.
The plaintiff submitted evidence supporting its claim, including purchase orders, invoices, and an account statement detailing invoice numbers, individual due dates, and the amounts owed, totaling AED 193,805.
The court stated that, in such cases, the default assumption is that the defendant’s liability is established for the amounts that have become due, and the burden of proof lies on the defendant to demonstrate payment or provide justification for non-payment. The defendant attended the proceedings but did not dispute the account statement presented by the plaintiff with any legally valid evidence, nor did it submit an alternative statement to challenge it.