Monday, Dec 12, 2016

Dubai: A leading satellite entertainment provider in the region lost a Dh1.1 million labour lawsuit against a senior ex-manager, who had resigned to join a global sports network.

In 2011, the manager joined the Dubai-based satellite group in a key position on an unlimited contract and resigned with immediate effect in 2015 although he was obliged to serve a six-month notice period.

The satellite group accepted the manager’s resignation with immediate effect after striking an amicable deal, in which the group bargained with the manager to pay him Dh1.1 million on condition that he doesn’t work for a competitor within a year of his termination.

The satellite group paid the amount [in different allowances plus gratuity] in advance to the ex-manager, who signed an undertaking that he would not join a competitor for a year.

Once the group learnt through a social media platform that the manager had started working for the global sports network, they complained against him before the Ministry of Labour’s legal department.

After both parties failed to resolve the dispute amicably, the satellite group’s labour lawsuit was referred to the Dubai Labour Court.

In is lawsuit, the group said the defendant breached the amicably signed deal and asked the labour court to revoke the signed agreement and return the money [Dh1.1 million].

The group mentioned in the lawsuit that when the defendant joined the sports network he inflicted financial loss on them besides breaching the agreement.

The ex-manager’s lawyer, Dr Habib Al Mulla, of Baker & McKenzie Habib Al Mulla Advocates, asked the labour court to dismiss the group’s lawsuit since his client did not breach the agreement and did not commit any wrongdoing.

“My client did not inflict any damages or loss on the claimants. He did not breach the agreement as he did not join a local competitor … his new job is based abroad and not within the UAE. The claimant asked the court to apply the UAE’s labour law but it is inapplicable in this lawsuit since our client works outside the UAE,” Dr Al Mulla argued in his defence.

During the trial, the court commissioned a media specialist and an auditor to examine the claimant’s demands and decide whether the defendant breached the agreement by working for a competitor.

The media specialist’s report confirmed that the satellite group and the global sports network are considered competitors since both networks broadcast to their viewers in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.

The auditor also provided the court with a detailed financial report.

Legal counsel Wael El Tounsy, of Baker & McKenzie Habib Al Mulla Advocates, argued in one of the written arguments before the court: “The non-competitor clause does not apply to the defendant since it is only limited to the UAE labour market and cannot be applied since his new work [sports network] is based outside the UAE. The claimant’s lawsuit must be dismissed due to geographical jurisdiction.”

During the trial, Dr Al Mulla asked the court to dismiss the auditor’s financial report because he did not meet his client and failed to specify the exact financial damages that the claimant had purportedly incurred.

The court rejected the claimant’s lawsuit and refused to order the defendant to repay the money.

According to the judgement sheet, the presiding judge ruled that the non-competitor clause mentioned in the amicable agreement [signed between the litigants] is void and does not stand in court.

The defendant did not breach the agreement, according to the primary judgement, and the claimant failed to specify what damages were inflicted on them.

The ruling became final since none of the litigants appealed the primary judgement.

By Bassam Zaza Legal and Court Correspondent

Gulf News 2016. All rights reserved.