Dubai court orders real estate firm to pay Dhs1.243m to a marketing company

The Dubai Real Estate Court has mandated that a real estate development firm pay Dhs1.243 million to a company specialising in real estate marketing and sales.

This amount includes the unpaid dues for marketing and sales services, organising the launch event of a real estate project, and statutory interest at a rate of 5% per annum, calculated from the date the legal claim was filed until full settlement. It also covers court fees, expenses, and legal costs.

The case originated from an agreement finalised between both parties in April 2025, where the plaintiff company was given exclusive rights for one year to manage the marketing and sales for a real estate project.

Compensation was set at 1% of the sales value for marketing and 7.5% for sales services, in addition to fees for organizing the project's launch event. The plaintiff claimed it had met its contractual obligations, but the defendant neglected to pay the complete amount before ending the agreement in November 2025.

The lawsuit demanded Dhs1.3 million, including the outstanding fees for marketing, sales services, and the event organization, along with penalties for late payment.

The court appointed an accounting expert to review the contractual relationship and financial accounts involved. The expert determined that the plaintiff company had met its obligations, with outstanding amounts totaling Dhs1.243 million, which included Dhs616,000 for project launch activities, Dhs599,000 for sales and marketing services, and Dhs28,000 in delay penalties.

In response, the defendant company argued that some commissions and fees were not due and claimed the agreement violated real estate brokerage regulations. They requested the case be reviewed by a different expert and sought the recovery of what they considered overpayments.

However, the court dismissed these arguments. It explained that the contract was complex, combining marketing services with real estate brokerage activities, and that the true nature of the contract depended on the obligations and work performed rather than its label. The court also confirmed that the plaintiff company was licensed to conduct real estate brokerage activities, disproving claims about the agreement's invalidity.

The court found the expert's report and accompanying documentation sufficient to settle the dispute. Thus, it denied sending the case back for further expert analysis and rejected the claims for fund recovery, as they were not submitted according to legal requirements or accompanied by necessary fees. The court then issued its judgment accordingly.