Source: Emirates Today – Dubai
The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance rejected a lawsuit filed by an individual and a company seeking to compel their opponents to submit the originals of five documents, including a cryptocurrency transfer receipt worth USD 500,000, emails, and invoices, in preparation for challenging them as forged. The court concluded that these documents had already been relied upon against them in a criminal case, and that they should have challenged their authenticity during the proceedings of that case, rather than filing a separate original forgery lawsuit after its conclusion.
The details of the case date back to a lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, in which they requested that the defendants be ordered to provide the originals of five documents. These included a cryptocurrency transfer receipt for USD 500,000, a receipt acknowledging the same amount, an email allegedly issued by the owner of the plaintiff company, in addition to two invoices in English. The plaintiffs claimed that these documents had been used against them during the criminal proceedings and contained, according to their allegations, fabricated facts, which led them to request the originals in order to initiate forgery challenges.
The plaintiffs explained that the defendants had submitted these documents before the criminal court and that the court-appointed expert had relied on them as supporting evidence for the defendants’ arguments, prompting them to seek the originals in preparation for challenging their authenticity.
However, the court concluded that the lawsuit was inadmissible, confirming that an original forgery lawsuit may only be filed when a person fears that a forged document may be used against them in the future. If the document has already been presented before the judiciary, the law provides another method for challenging it, namely raising a forgery claim during the proceedings of the case in which the document was submitted, as a means of defence before the competent court.
The court noted that the plaintiffs had acknowledged in their statement of claim that the disputed documents had already been submitted before the criminal court, and that they had also acknowledged that these documents were presented to the appointed expert committee in that case. This means that reliance on these documents had already taken place, and therefore the essential condition for filing an original forgery lawsuit was not met.
The court affirmed that a person who fails to exercise their right to challenge a document as forged during the proceedings in which the document was submitted may not later circumvent the legal procedures by filing an independent original forgery lawsuit. In such circumstances, the forgery challenge is considered a defence that must be raised before the court hearing the same dispute.
The court further added that judicial precedent has established that an original forgery lawsuit was introduced to protect individuals who fear that a forged document may be used against them in the future. However, once such reliance has already occurred, determining the authenticity or forgery of the document falls within the jurisdiction of the court before which the dispute is being heard.