A Culinary Contract Turns Sour: The Final Word on a Disputed Catering Debt

In a decisive ruling, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation brought an end to a contentious commercial dispute between a food services provider and its corporate client, affirming a debt of over half a million dirhams. The judgment underscores a critical procedural principle: legal defenses cannot be introduced for the first time at the final stage of cassation, and it highlights the judiciary's reliance on expert financial testimony to unravel complex commercial dealings.

📋 Case Background: A Growing Debt and a Payment Order

The saga began when a prominent catering supplier filed a payment order claim against a client company to which it had been providing extensive meal services. The supplier asserted that pursuant to a series of purchase orders, it had consistently delivered breakfast and dinner meals, but the client had failed to settle the accumulating invoices. The outstanding amount, according to the supplier's records, had swelled to a significant AED 502,339.45.

The supplier presented a compelling case to the Court of First Instance, supported by invoices stamped and signed by the client company's representatives, which served as acknowledgment of receipt. Persuaded by the evidence, the court promptly issued a payment order, compelling the client company to pay the full amount plus a 3% annual interest from the date of the judicial claim.

⚖️ The Appeal and the Expert's Scrutiny

Unwilling to accept the decision, the client company escalated the matter to the Court of Appeal. In response, the appellate court appointed a financial expert to conduct a thorough audit of the commercial relationship. The expert was tasked with examining the purchase orders, invoices, credit notes, and payment records to determine the precise financial standing between the two parties.

The expert's report proved to be a turning point in the litigation. After a meticulous review, the report concluded:

• A clear commercial relationship existed, governed by purchase orders for the provision of meals.

• The total value of the food services supplied, after accounting for credit notes, was substantial.

• The client company's payments fell significantly short, leaving an outstanding balance of exactly AED 502,339.45—the very amount claimed by the supplier.

• Critically, the expert found that payment receipts submitted by the client as proof of settlement were, in fact, made out to an entirely different and unrelated company, rendering them irrelevant to the case at hand.

Armed with these unambiguous findings, the Court of Appeal upheld the initial payment order, affirming that the debt was established in writing, for a fixed amount, and was immediately due for payment.

⚡ The Last Stand: The Appeal to the Court of Cassation

In a final attempt to overturn the judgment, the client company lodged an appeal with the Court of Cassation, building its case on two primary arguments:

1. The Procedural Flaw: The company contended that the initial demand for payment—a mandatory prerequisite for a payment order—was invalid. It claimed the notification was sent to a phone number listed on a purchase order, which was different from the official number on its trade license. This procedural defect, they argued, should nullify the entire case from its inception.

2. The Substantive Dispute: The client further argued that the invoiced amount was inflated. It alleged that the catering supplier had unilaterally added charges for meal packaging and other items not explicitly agreed upon in the purchase orders. They insisted that the debt was not proven by a definitive, signed document from them for the full amount claimed, thereby failing to meet the legal standard for a payment order.

🏛️ The High Court's Unwavering Verdict

The Court of Cassation meticulously analyzed and dismantled each of the client's arguments.

Regarding the claim of improper notification, the court deemed it inadmissible. It invoked the established legal principle that a defense cannot be raised for the first time before the Court of Cassation if it was not presented to the lower courts. Since the client had failed to challenge the validity of the notification during the appeal stage, it had forfeited its right to do so later. The court stated, "It is not permissible to present a defense before the Court of Cassation that was not previously raised before the trial court."

On the substance of the debt, the court found the client's arguments unconvincing. It affirmed the lower court's authority to interpret evidence and rely on expert reports. The Court of Cassation noted that the Court of Appeal's decision was well-founded, resting solidly on the expert's report, which had confirmed the debt's existence and quantum. The combination of purchase orders, signed invoices, and the detailed financial audit constituted sufficient written proof as required by Article 143 of the Civil Procedure Law.

The court concluded that the lower court's reasoning was sound and its adoption of the expert's findings was a proper exercise of its judicial discretion. The client's claims about unagreed charges and lack of evidence were effectively refuted by the comprehensive financial review.

Final Judgment

The Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal in its entirety. It ordered the appellant company to bear all legal costs and fees, in addition to paying AED 1,000 in legal fees to the catering supplier. The security deposit for the appeal was also confiscated, bringing a definitive and costly end to the client company's legal battle.