A British national in UAE bought a property; after the purchase, the seller began delaying the handover and the transfer of ownership, complicated further because the property was under attachment at the time. Details about the buyer and transaction are withheld to protect the client’s privacy. With the delays dragging on for close to six months, the buyer sought legal advice. The first option put to her was to go to court: File a claim for the transfer of ownership, plus compensation for the delay.
Checking if suing is best option
Before taking that step, her legal team reviewed the contract and the facts around the property and the attachment. The question was not only whether there were grounds to sue, but whether litigation was actually the best option, given her commitments and the time a dispute would take.
“Before we begin any lawsuit, we look at the case from two angles: what can we secure for the client, and the most effective way to get there,” says Ahmed Al Zarooni, advocate and founder of Ahmed Al Zarooni Advocates and Legal Consultants. “Sometimes a client has a clear right, but reaching it through settlement is faster, cheaper and more beneficial than a long legal dispute.” The team concluded a direct settlement served the buyer’s interests better, provided it secured the transfer and fair compensation. But would the seller agree?
Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
Making the case to the other side
The team approached the seller, making clear that the court would not necessarily work in his favour either: A verdict would not end the matter, and litigation could expose him to further obligations and costs beyond the original duty to transfer ownership. “When we proposed the settlement, the point wasn’t to warn the seller that the other side would go to court,” Al Zarooni says. “What mattered was showing him that litigation could cost more than settling now. If the dispute could be closed by transferring the property and compensating her with an agreed amount, that could work out better for him than a lawsuit, with its fees, costs and possible further claims.”
Court fees factored heavily; fees linked to a claim’s value can reach 6 per cent of it. The arithmetic was simple: Close the dispute now on clear terms, or risk a lawsuit that could cost more. For the buyer, settling wasn’t giving up her claim. It meant the same outcome by a more practical route: Ownership transferred, fair compensation, and the dispute closed without litigation. After further talks, the two sides reached a settlement. Ownership was transferred to the buyer, who also received compensation for the delay.
“The real value of legal advice isn’t just knowing a client has a right,” Al Zarooni says. “It’s knowing the best way to secure it. If the same result, or a better one, can be reached through settlement, in less time and at lower cost, then it’s our duty to put that option in front of the client.”
Source: Khaleej Times