Dubai court orders firm to pay Dhs4.17m to construction equipment and machinery rental company

The Dubai Commercial Court ordered a contracting company to pay Dhs4.169 million to a construction equipment and machinery rental establishment after failing to settle its financial obligations, despite receiving and using the rented items across three separate projects. The amount covers rental fees, repair costs, compensation, and the value of equipment and materials that were not returned. The court also awarded annual interest of 5%, calculated from the date the claim was filed until full payment.

The rental establishment filed the lawsuit to recover outstanding dues arising from commercial transactions in which the contracting company had issued purchase orders for construction equipment, machinery, and materials. The plaintiff stated that it had fulfilled the orders according to the agreed specifications and quantities. Delivery notes and invoices signed by the defendant confirmed receipt without objection.

The plaintiff sought payment of approximately Dhs4.17 million, including the value of the rented equipment and materials that had not been returned. Alternatively, it requested approximately Dhs3.72 million, together with the return of the remaining equipment and materials or payment of their value, estimated at Dhs447,000. It also sought legal interest, court fees, and related expenses.

During the proceedings, the court appointed an accounting expert, who concluded that the plaintiff had fulfilled its obligations and that the defendant owed Dhs3,036,000 for unpaid materials and equipment supplied by the establishment. The court subsequently appointed an engineering expert to work alongside the accounting expert, examine the technical aspects of the dispute, and reconcile the accounts between the parties.

In their joint report, the experts determined that the total amount owed was Dhs4.169 million. This included equipment rental fees, the cost of repairs to some equipment, compensation, and the value of equipment and materials that had not been returned.

The defendant challenged the expert report and asked the court to refer the case back to the experts to address its objections. The court, however, found the report’s conclusions sound and accepted its findings. It affirmed that the purchase orders, delivery notes, and invoices established that the plaintiff had met its obligations and supplied the equipment required for all three projects. Accordingly, the court ordered the contracting company to pay the outstanding amount, together with the applicable interest.