- Liability action arising from the harmful act. Shall be time-barred upon the expiry of three years from the date on which the injured person became aware of the occurrence of the damage and of the identity of the person responsible therefor. Basis thereof? Article 298/1 of the Civil Transactions Law. This period starts to run with regard to the continuing harmful act from the date of the end of the occurrence of this act and its impact on the injured person. It does not start to run from the date of its occurrence as long as it is a recurring act until the date of filing the lawsuit.

- An example of a valid reasoning by imposing on the appellant to pay an amount of money to the respondent who was injured as a result of the accident and convicting the driver thereof on 5/6/2012, since the injuries did not stabilise until after an artificial joint was implanted.

- Jurisdiction in commercial matters. The court in whose circuit the defendant is domiciled, or the court in whose circuit the agreement was made, or the court in whose circuit the agreement was executed in whole or in part. These courts are of equal status laid down by law to enable the plaintiff to choose the court he desires without imposing upon him to resort to a specific court. Basis and reason therefor? Article 31, third paragraph of the Civil Procedure Law.

- An example of a valid reasoning by imposing upon the appellant to pay an amount of money to the respondent after the latter filed a lawsuit against the appellant and served the same at its address, and not against its branch since it is the entity that approved the vehicle that caused the accident, and its branch is considered a foreign branch of the parent company and has no legal personality separate from the parent company.

- The injured beneficiary of the insurance policy has a legal right before the insurance company of the vehicle that caused the accident, to claim compensation for the damages incurred by him. Basis and reason therefor? Article 1026 of the Civil Transactions Law.

- An example of a valid reasoning by imposing upon the appellant to pay to the injured person an amount of money on the grounds that the latter derived his right of recourse against the insurer from the clauses of the insurance policy.

- Compensation for material and moral damages in the form of Diya, estimated Arsh and non-estimated Arsh.

- Understanding the merits of the case and estimating its evidence, including doctors’ reports, in order to determine the elements of the damage and to estimate the remedying compensation therefor. Within the authority of the trial court. Provided that it bases its ruling on valid reasons.

- An example of a valid reasoning by imposing on the appellant to pay an amount of money to the respondent on the grounds that the compensation is based on a final criminal judgment and a forensic report due to his injury as a result of an accident.

- Prohibition of reformatio in peius is a fundamental rule established by the Federal Supreme Court. Basis thereof? Article 150 of the Federal Civil Procedure Law.

- Upon the appeal filed by the appellant, the ruling of the court of next instance, after reversing the judgment in favour of the appellant. Shall be limited to two options only, either to cancel or reduce this amount, or to keep it. Reason therefor. A person shall not be placed in a worse position as a result of filing an appeal. Violation thereof. Effect thereof. Shall be reversed.

- Filing a cassation for the second time. Valid for adjudication. Effect thereof. The court shall adjudicate it.

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the contested judgment and all documents - the respondent has filed Lawsuit No. 1552 of 2017 - Ajman, Civil, Plenary - against the appellant, requesting the imposition upon it to pay to him an amount equal to five million dirhams in compensation for the damages he sustained as a result of the accident that caused to him by the vehicle No. ..... Commercial - Sultanate of Oman, and of which its driver was convicted by a final criminal judgment in Lawsuit No. 678 of 2012, Ajman Penal. After the Court of First Instance has assigned a forensic doctor and he filed his report, it imposed on the appellant to pay the respondent an amount equal to 751,666 dirhams. The appellant filed an appeal against this ruling under No. 192 of 2018, and the respondent also filed an appeal against it under No. 197 of 2018. The Court of Appeal ruled to modify the appealed judgment into imposing on the Appellant to pay to the respondent an amount equal to 1,828,660 dirhams. The appellant filed an appeal in cassation against this ruling under No. 513 of 2018 - Commercial.

The Federal Supreme Court ruled to reverse the contested ruling with referral based on the fact that the prescription period for hearing the case is three years pursuant to Article 298/1 of the Civil Transactions Law and not fifteen years (the long statute of limitations),which renders the ruling defective for violating the law, and this error prevented it from examining the three-year prescription period in terms of its effective date, suspension, or interruption in light of the penal judgment issued in the case that was instituted for the unlawful act ... Following the nullifying judgment, the court of next instance, ruled in the session dated 27/11/2018 to modify the appealed judgment into imposing on the appellant to pay to the respondent an amount equal to 1,828,660 dirhams. The appellant filed the present appeal in cassation against this ruling. After presentation of the cassation to this court held in a Council Chamber, it deemed it valid for hearing in a pleading session.

Whereas the cassation is based on eight grounds, wherein the appellant objects to the contested ruling in the first and sixth reasons stating that it violated the law and erred in its application, as it ruled the admissibility of the case despite the passage of more than three years since the occurrence of the harmful act learned by the respondent, because the incident occurred on 28/3/2012 and the above-mentioned penal judgment convicting the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident and insured with the Appellant was issued on 5/6/2012, while the respondent filed the present claim for compensation on 12/6/2017, i.e. more than three years after the issuance of the penal judgment, which requires the dismissal of the case pursuant to Article 298/1 of the Civil Transactions Law, however, the ruling decided otherwise, and therefore, it shall be deemed defective, and consequently, it shall be reversed.

Whereas this objection is inapposite, since it is legally prescribed that the liability action arising from the harmful act shall be time-barred upon the expiry of three years from the date on which the injured party became aware of the occurrence of the damage and the identity of the person responsible therefor, in accordance with the provisions of Article 298/1 of the Civil Transactions Law, and that this period starts to run with regard to the continuing it shall not start to run from the date of its occurrence as long as it is a recurring act until the date of filing the lawsuit.

Whereas the appellant objects to the contested judgment in the third reason, stating that it violated the law and erred in its application, because the appellant was not litigated at its headquarters located in Abu Dhabi, and therefore, it shall be deemed defective, and consequently, it shall be reversed.

Whereas this objection is inapposite, since it is prescribed - pursuant to the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 31 of the Civil Procedures Law - that jurisdiction in commercial matters rests with the court in whose circuit the defendant is domiciled, or the court in whose circuit the agreement was made, or the court in whose circuit the agreement was executed in whole or in part, and that these courts are of equal status laid down by law in order to enable the plaintiff to choose the court he desires without imposing upon him to resort to a specific court, in order to facilitate the litigation procedures therefor.

Whereas the Appellant objects to the contested judgment in the fourth, fifth and seventh reasons, stating that it violated the law, erred in its application, and breached the right of defence, on the grounds that the vehicle causing the accident is insured to travel within the UAE under the unified orange insurance card, and therefore, the unified regional office of the UAE is responsible for resolving claims related to car accidents resulting from the unified agreement, and thus, the lawsuit should not be accepted against the appellant, in addition to the fact that the ownership of the insurance company in Oman was transferred to a third party who replaced it in all its obligations, which was not regarded by the contested ruling, as it ruled its liability for compensation, which renders it defective and necessitates its reversal.

Whereas this objection is inapposite in whole, since it is legally prescribed - as per the text of Article 1026 of the Civil Transactions Law - that the injured beneficiary of the insurance policy has a legal right of recourse against the insurance company of the vehicle that caused the accident to claim compensation for the damages he has incurred,

Whereas the appellant objects to the contested judgment in the eighth and ninth reasons, stating that it violated the law, erred in its application, and contained deficiencies in reasoning and flaws in inference, when it awarded the respondent three compensation for the injuries he has sustained, describing them as diya, estimated arsh, and non- estimated arsh, according to the conditions prescribed therefor by Sharia, and then awarded him a moral compensation although it may not be adjudged along with the diya and estimated arsh, which renders it defective and necessitates its reversal.

Whereas this objection is inadmissible, since - with respect to the damages awarded by the appealed judgment and amounting to 1,526,660 dirhams for material and moral damages in the form of Diya, estimated Arsh, and non-estimated Arsh –it is prescribed that understanding the merits of the case and estimating its evidence, including doctors’ reports, in order to determine the elements of the damage and to estimate the remedying compensation therefor in respect of which there are no specific criteria in the Sharia and the law to be followed, are matters within the sole authority of the trial court, provided that it bases its ruling on valid reasons sufficient to support it.

Whereas the appellant objects to the contested judgment in the second reason, stating that it violated the law, when it imposed upon it to pay an amount equal to twenty thousand dirhams as attorney’s fees, which is prejudicial thereto, since the court of next instance before reversal of the judgment, adjudged the attorney’s fees at an amount equal to ten thousand dirhams, and therefore, the contested judgment shouldn’t have modified this amount by increase, which renders it defective and necessitates its reversal.

Whereas this objection is valid, since it is legally prescribed - as per the text of the second paragraph of Article 150 of the Federal Civil Procedure Law - that the prohibition of reformatio in peius is an established fundamental rule, and that the Federal Supreme Court has adopted and followed this principle in all its rulings. Whereas the court of next instance, after reversing the judgment in favour of the appellant, should have limited its review to the appeal filed by the appellant only, taking into account that it challenged the first appealed judgment which imposed upon it to pay an amount of 1,828,660 dirhams in addition to the attorney’s fees equal to ten thousand dirhams, in which case the judgment had only two options left, either to cancel or reduce this amount, or to keep it as is, without placing the appellant in a worse position as a result of filing the appeal and imposing an additional amount. Whereas the contested judgment decided otherwise and ordered the payment of the attorney’s fees by increase, i.e., twenty thousand dirhams instead of ten thousand, it shall be deemed as having violated the law, and consequently, it shall be reversed as to this part with adjudication of the merits, since the cassation is filed for the second time and is valid for adjudication.