The Civil Court in Dubai has ordered an employee of Arab nationality to pay 10,000 AED in compensation to his manager after he was found guilty of insulting and threatening the manager through a text message sent via WhatsApp.

In detail, the plaintiff, also of Arab descent, filed a lawsuit seeking 55,000 AED in damages for the material and moral harm caused by the employee, including a legal interest of 5% from the date of the claim until full payment is made.

According to the plaintiff's statements in the lawsuit, the defendant insulted him and threatened him through WhatsApp, prompting the plaintiff to file a criminal complaint against the employee.

The Criminal Court subsequently convicted the employee of the charges of insulting the victim using a technological means and threatening him, imposing a fine of 5,000 AED.

This ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeal, which added to the sentence the requirement to remove the insults and threats, thereby making the ruling final following the expiration of the deadlines for filing for further appeal.

The plaintiff presented a copy of the criminal ruling alongside a certificate from the Public Prosecutor's Office affirming that the appellate judgment had not been contested.

In his defense, the defendant appeared at the litigation management office and submitted a memorandum asserting his innocence regarding the accusations, describing them as malicious due to an existing employment dispute between the parties prior to the incident, and denying any harm.

He included counterclaims in his memorandum, asking for the dismissal of the civil lawsuit as a retaliation move, along with a demand for 10,000 AED as compensation for financial and psychological damage, arguing that the plaintiff intentionally misquoted excerpts from his message to cause him harm and falsely accused him of threatening behavior.

Additionally, he requested that the plaintiff pay him 18,640 AED in due wages as ordered by a labor court decision.

After considering the submissions from both parties, the court clarified in its ruling that, according to Article 35 of the Evidence Law and Article 269 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the civil court's obligation to adhere to the judgment issued in the criminal case is confined to aspects deemed necessary in detailing whether the act constitutes a common basis between the civil and criminal cases and its legal characterization.

As such, once the criminal court has definitively ruled on these matters, the civil court is required to comply with those findings in related civil claims, and it is prohibited from re-examining them to prevent violations of the res judicata principles established by the binding criminal conviction.

Moreover, the court stated that moral damage is defined as any harm affecting dignity, feelings, or honor, including psychological distress, and that the assessment of this damage and its resulting compensation falls within the jurisdiction of the trial court, provided that no specific legal standards for such assessment are mandated.

The court noted that there was a definitive criminal conviction against the defendant that cannot be contested, thus limiting the civil court's inquiry to assessing and determining appropriate compensation for the harm suffered by the plaintiff.

The court found no evidence of any material damages incurred by the plaintiff and expressed skepticism about his claims regarding a fee agreement, citing the document as an informal one linked to an individual not represented in the lawsuit.

It concluded that the damages sustained by the plaintiff were limited to moral injuries associated with anguish and suffering, as well as a blow to his reputation.

Regarding the defendant's requests, the court determined that the claim for compensation related to alleged malicious prosecution and false reporting was founded on the premise of a criminal conviction that established the defendant’s guilt, thus negating any misuse of the right to litigation by the plaintiff.

Concerning the request for payment of the 18,640 AED due under a labor court ruling, the court recommended enforcement of that decision but noted that it lacked jurisdiction to address that matter.

Ultimately, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff 10,000 AED as compensation for the moral damages incurred.