Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation 673/2011 PDF

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, 673/2011 Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation 673/2011 Abdul Samad Abdul Aziz; Nabil Omran: 27 October 2011 Subject: Evidence and Proof "Expertise...

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, 673/2011 Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation 673/2011 Abdul Samad Abdul Aziz; Nabil Omran: 27 October 2011 Subject: Evidence and Proof "Expertise, Modern Technology, Customary, Official, Testimony" Keywords: (1) Appeal "Appeal before Court of Appeal; Admissible and inadmissible thereof" "Term of Appeal"; Judgment "Causation thereof; Non-defective causation"; Cassation "causes of appeal by Cassation; Unacceptable thereof"; Jurisdiction "jurisdiction of the court"; Arbitration; (2) Defence "breaching right of defence; What does not provide the same"; Judgment "Causation thereof; Non-defective causation"; Cassation "causes of appeal by Cassation; Unacceptable thereof"; Capital Market Authority; Securities; Annulment; Evidence "Expertise"; Court of subject matter "authorities thereof"; (3) Judgment "Causation thereof; Non-defective causation"; Cassation "causes of appeal by Cassation; Unacceptable thereof"; Legislation referred to: Article 151 of Code of Civil Transaction Article 151 of Code of Civil Procedures Abstract 1. The text of Article (151) of Code of Civil Transaction provides that: (It is inadmissible to appeal against judgments delivered during progression of the claim, which does not settle the litigation except after issuance of the judgment, which settles the whole litigation, with exception of temporary and urgent judgments, which are issued for suspension of the claim, the judgments which are liable to obligatory execution, and the judgments issued regarding existence or lack of jurisdiction, in case the court is not competent to judge the claim.). This means that the judgments related to the jurisdiction of the court in term of competency thereof or jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal to settle dispute might be appealed before the Court of Appeal upon issuance of the judgment of court of First Instance, without waiting for a judgment, which settles the dispute, in order to determine the path of the claim whether through the court or through Arbitration Tribunal. However, the above-mentioned text is limited to discussing the right in appealing the judgment or not. The term of appeal is mentioned within the text of Article 152/1 of the same law, which provides that: (The term of appeal against judgment shall commence on the day next to the date of issuance of the judgment, unless the law provides otherwise.). This means that the party who is entitled to appeal a judgment within the cases provided in Article 151 of Code of Civil Procedures shall be bonded with the same term determined for appeal. There is no room to say that legislator granted such appealing party the right to choose, when determining the commencement date of term of appeal. The appealed judgment replied correctly the defense of Appellant, which is related to lack of jurisdiction of the court and jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal to settle the claim, by stating that Appellant should appeal the judgment of Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal, by rejecting such aspect of defense when issued on 12/05/2010. The said judgment was not appealed except with appealing the judgment issued regarding the subject of the claim on 12/01/2011. Therefore, Appellant's right to appeal shall be deemed as expired. The appealed judgment concluded the same result, correctly without violation of the law. Therefore, the objection shall be deemed as baseless. (1. It is established that essential aspects of defense, which the court of subject matter is obligated to discuss and reply with special grounds, are the aspects of defense, which in case of validity thereof may change the point of view regarding the claim. The aspect of defence is not deemed as the same unless relying on basis of law. The text of Article 24 of Law No. 4/2000 regarding Emirates Securities & Commodities Authority provides that: (1) All transactions related to listed securities shall be recorded within the records of the market. (2) The entity, which transaction is conducted regarding securities thereof outside the market, shall be committed with the transactions related such securities according to the rules applicable and issued by the council. (3) Each Copyright 2025: Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Page 2 transaction regarding securities listed within the market, which is not recorded according to the provisions herein, as well as the regulations and decisions issued in execution of the law). This means annulment of each transaction within the securities listed within the market, which is not registered within the records of this market.). Appellant did not allege that the transactions of trade, which are subject of dispute, are not registered within the records of the market. The documents lack any evidence to prove the same. Arguments arisen by Appellant, which are related to annulment of trading transactions recorded on (CD), are not related to registering of the transaction regarding securities within the records of securities and commodities market. Violation thereof shall not result in annulment, which is provided within above-mentioned Article 24. Annulment is not concluded unless by evidencing that records of the market lack a record of the transactions, which are conducted to the securities, which are listed within the market. The documents lacked the said evidence. Appellant's defence in this regard is not relying on a correct base. Therefore, the appealed judgment shall not be deemed as defective in case of not replying the same. The text of Article 69 of Code of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions, regarding mandating one expert or more to seek assistance thereof in the matters required for settlement of the claim is a permission granted by legislator to the court. Therefore, the court shall not be objected in case of not practicing the same in case of being convinced with the report of the expert mandated thereby within the claim, and in case the court within the limits of the discretion thereof decided to adopt such report for being convinced with the validity of the grounds thereof, and the court decides that there is no need to mandate other expert or experts. The court shall not be controlled in this regard. Thereafter, the court shall not be obligated to reply independently to the objections, which are addressed to the report, as court's adoption of the report of the expert relying on the grounds thereof, means that the court did not reach any conclusion, which may need a reply with more than the reply of the report. The judgment of Court of First Instance approved by the appealed judgment, established judgment thereof to obligate Appellant with the judged amount relying on being convinced with the report of the mandated expert, which concluded that Appellant and Appellee did not comply with the condition of the transaction agreement entered into there-between. The said agreement provides essentially the obligation to deposit the amount of the transaction required to be executed within the account of the company before execution of the transaction. Appellee financed Appellant through overdraft during the term of dealing there between. Appellee has a real balance, which represents the truth of the financial position of the client, whether Creditor or Debtor. In addition, Appellee has another balance, which is valid for transaction of the client, after adding the value of the credit facilities given through overdraft granted to the client from the company. Transactions of trading stocks are not permitted to be financed through over draft except for 48 hours. However, it is clear through the account statements of Appellant at Appellee that the same is not practiced along the term of transaction there-between, and under knowledge of Appellant and Appellee. In exception of the above-mentioned, all transactions conducted to Appellant's account are confirmed to be correct and that Appellee is entitled to an amount of AED 965641/58 to be collected from Appellant. The appealed judgment referred within the grounds thereof to the judgment of the court of First Instance. The appealed judgment added in reply to defence of Appellant that the decision No. 1/2000 issued by Securities & Commodities Authority regarding the regulations of Mediators lacked provision to prevent Mediator to purchase stokes in instalments in the name of a client. Article 18 of same law, in section eleven thereof obligated Mediator to fulfil all obligations arising from transactions, which such Mediator mediates in entering into within the terms determined for the same, in addition to settlement of obligations thereof within the market according to practices thereof; regardless the situation whether such Mediator received amounts thereof from the clients or not. Moreover, Article 31 of the Decision of Securities & Commodities Authority No. 2/2001, obligated Mediator in case of purchasing securities in the name of one of the investors and for account thereof to pay the additional amount payable thereby according to the report issued for the clearance, which conducts settlement transactions within the term determined by the market, provided that such term shall not exceed end of working day of the next day of trade. Then the amounts shall be settled directly between Mediator and client, according to the agreement there-between. Besides, violation of professional obligations of Mediators shall not result in annulment of selling transactions or cancellation of the transaction, which is conducted correctly. However, the disciplinary penalties – provided within Article 20 of the decision No. 1/2000 – shall be imposed, to the Mediator. It is clear through the report of the expert that all violations, which has been conducted, are related to the credit, which is granted by Appellee to Appellant. The report did not mention that such transaction are not recorded within the records of the market. Besides, all transactions conducted to the account of Appellant, whether regarding selling or purchase were correct, and were conducted by knowledge of Appellant. Appellee was having a full authorization from Appellant for every matter, in addition to notifying Appellant with every matter, which has been executed. Accordingly, Appellee is not accountable for any loss arising from the transactions of selling and purchasing stocks, as long as such transactions had been conducted correctly, and in accordance with the client's orders. Through the above-mentioned, it is clear that the court of subject matter, through the authority thereof in understanding facts and assessment of the evidences thereof in addition to conclusion aspects of right, has established judgment thereof relying on the conclusions of the report of the mandated expert, which the court is convinced by, due to correct researches, and discussing Appellant's aspects of defence arisen within the two grounds of objections, Copyright 2025: Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Page 3 which are omitted by judgment according to the reasonable and correct grounds mentioned thereby, which does not include any contradiction and accordingly the judgment might be led to the result concluded thereby. Therefore, the judgment shall not be deemed as defective in case omitting the demand of Appellant to mandate new experts or return the assignment to the expert previously mandated, as long as the report and documents of the claim indicates sufficient evidences to compose opinion of the court, and to describe the aspect of right therein. Therefore, objection of the appealed judgment for such reasons shall be deemed as baseless. 2. It is established as a principal that the aspect of defence, which is not provided to the court of subject matter, shall not be arisen before the court of cassation. The documents of the claim lacked any evidence that Appellant adhered before the court of subject matter or within the explanatory memorandum regarding grounds of appeal, with the decision of Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange for the year 2008, which is issued regarding the transactions of trading securities nor Appellee's violation to the same. Therefore, objecting the judgment in this regard shall be deemed as a new aspect of defence that should not be provided for the first time to the court of cassation. Principles (1) - Admissibility to appeal the judgments issued by Court of First Instance, which are related to jurisdiction of the court in term of jurisdiction thereof or jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal. Once the judgment is issued. Without waiting issuance of a judgment to settle the dispute. Article (151) Code of Civil Procedures. Causes of the same? - Term of appeal in each case. Commencement of the same as from the next day to issuance of the judgment, within the term determined for appeal before court of Appeal. Article (152/1) of the same Code. - Appellant is not entitled to choose the date of commencement of term of Appeal. (2) - Essential aspect of defence, which the court is committed to reply with special grounds, is the aspect of defence, which in case of validity thereof may change the point of view regarding the claim, whenever the same is established on a ground of law. - Annulment of each transaction within securities, which are listed in the market but not registered within according to provisions of law No. 4/2000 regarding Emirates Securities & Commodities Authority, as well as the decisions and regulations issued in execution of the said law. - Authority of the court of subject matter to mandate one expert or more regarding the technical matters, which are required to settle the claim. - Adopting the report of the expert who is mandated in the claim when the court is convinced by validity of the grounds of the same. Without mandating another expert. Does not cause the judgment to be defective. - The court is not committed to reply independently to the objections addressed to the report. Adopting of the report relying on the grounds thereof. Means: that the court does not find such objection as sufficient to give a reply other than Expert's reply. Example. - Conclusion understanding the facts of the claim and assessment of evidences therein. Subjective, as long as reasonable. (3) -Inadmissibility to raise a defence, which is not previously presented to the court of Subject matters. For the first time before Court of Cassation. Example. The Judgement It is concluded through facts of claim and rest documents thereof, as well as appealed judgment that Appellee filed claim No.497/2010 Commercial Full-bench Abu Dhabi against Appellant with a demand to judge: (1) By obligating Appellant to pay Appellee an amount of AED 965641/58, as well as the delay interest equal to 12% Copyright 2025: Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Page 4 as from the date of filing the claim until full payment, and inclusion of urgent enforcement without guarantee. (2) To join the file of Order on Petition No. 491/2010, and to announce Appellant with a copy of the seizure decisions issued against Appellant. (3) To judge by validity and confirmation of the seizure issued within the Order on Petition No. 491/2010. In explanation of the same, Appellee said that Appellant opened an Account of Investor at Appellee, to exchange the local stocks and the stocks listed within the United Arab Emirates. On 23/04/2007, Appellant conducted the first transaction of selling and purchase, of the local stocks. On 04/08/2008, Appellant's account is suspended at Appellee as Appellant is debtor with an amount of AED 4496481/37. Accordingly, Appellant demanded Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange to approve selling the stocks owned thereby. After selling such stocks, Appellant Became debtor with an amount of AED 1465641/58. Besides, Appellant paid an amount of AED 50000 with cheque No. 410031. Thereafter, Appellant became debtor with the claimed amount. However, Appellant refrained to pay the same without any reason, which led Appellee to obtain an Order on Petition No. 491/2010, to impose preservative seizure to monies and accounts of Appellant at the entities described within the order, and within the limit of the claimed amount. Therefore, the claim is filed. On 12/05/2010, the court judged by rejection of defence related to non-acceptance of the claim due to existence of Arbitration Chart. The court mandated an expert to fulfil the assignment described within the verdicts of the judgment thereof. The expert provided report thereof, thereafter the court judged on 12/01/2011 by obligating Appellant to pay Appellee an amount of AED 965641/58 as well as delay interest equal to 5% annually, as from the date of filing the claim until full payment without exceeding the original amount of the debt. In addition to judge by validity of the Preservative Seizure imposed to the monies of Appellant according to the Order on Petition No. 491/2010. Appellant appealed the said judgment by appeal No. 259/2011 - Commercial Abu Dhabi. On 29/03/2011, the Court of Appeal judged by approval of the said judgment of First Instance. Appellant appealed the judgment of Court of Appeal by cassation. Appeal is presented to this court within the Chamber of the Court, which determined a session to investigate the same. Appellant objects the appealed judgment within the First Ground of Appeal by misapplication of the law. Appellant defended by lack of jurisdiction of the court and claimed jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal to settle the claim. However, the court of First Instance approved by Appealed judgment rejected the said aspect of defence and defective basis, which is expiry of Appellant's right to appeal by expiry of the term of appeal provided within Article 151 of the Code of Civil Procedures. Although the said text of law did not provide prevention of Appellant to appeal whole judgment, along with all aspects of defence thereof, including lack of jurisdiction. However, the said Article granted Appellant the choice to appeal the judgment before Court of Appeal prior or post to issuance of the judgment, which settles dispute, which defects the judgment and leads the same to be revoked. The said objection is incorrect. The text of Article (151) of Code of Civil Transaction provides that: (It is inadmissible to appeal against judgments delivered during progression of the claim, which does not settle the litigation except after issuance of the judgment, which settles the whole litigation, with exception of temporary and urgent judgments, which are issued for suspension of the claim, the judgments which are liable to obligatory execution, and the judgments issued regarding existence or lack of jurisdiction, in case the court is not competent to judge the claim.). This means that the judgments related to the jurisdiction of the court in term of competency thereof or jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal to settle dispute might be appealed before the Court of Appeal upon issuance of the judgment of court of First Instance, without waiting for a judgment, which settles the dispute, in order to determine the path of the claim whether through the court or through Arbitration Tribunal. However, the above-mentioned text is limited to discussing the right in appealing the judgment or not. The term of appeal is mentioned within the text of Article 152/1 of the same law, which provides that: (The term of appeal against judgment shall commence on the day next to the date of issuance of the judgment, unless the law provides otherwise.). This means that the party who is entitled to appeal a judgment within the cases provided in Article 151 of Code of Civil Procedures shall be bonded with the same term determined for appeal. There is no room to say that legislator granted such appealing party the right to choose, when determining the commencement date of term of appeal. The appealed judgment replied correctly the defense of Appellant, which is related to lack of jurisdiction of the court and jurisdiction of Arbitration Tribunal to settle the claim, by stating that Appellant should appeal the judgment of Court of First Instance before the Court of Appeal, by rejecting such aspect of defense when issued on 12/05/2010. The said judgment was not appealed except with appealing the judgment issued regarding the subject of the claim on 12/01/2011. Therefore, Appellant's right to appeal shall be deemed as expired. The appealed judgment concluded the same result, correctly without violation of the law. Therefore, the objection shall be deemed as baseless. Appellant objects the appealed judgment within the Second, Third and Fifth Grounds of Appeal by violation of law, lack of understanding the facts of the law, failure in causation, and breaching rights of defence. Appellant adhered within the minutes of meetings and memorandums provided to the expert with objection thereof to the Copyright 2025: Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Page 5 trading transactions, which are recorded on the Compact Disk, which Appellee relied upon in claim thereof due to transactions' violation to Article 24 of the law No. 4/2000. Appellant specified the transactions, which have been conducted with violation of the law, concluded from the voice records of transactions. Appellant evidenced that recording operations were defective, relying on the said (CD). The transactions are violating the law, relying on the account statement, as it is evidenced therefrom that Appellee did not loss any amounts and that Appellant is the only loser. The said statements did not describe the amounts of financing, which is deemed as a violation to the law. Besides, trading statements describes conduction of trading transactions without any real cover, as Appellee did not claim Appellant to pay the amount of such transactions within 48 hours. Moreover, Appellee did not inform Appellant monthly with a statement of trading transactions. Besides, expert proved through the CD as well as trading statements that trading transactions are 296 transaction, the number of recorded transactions are 149 transaction and the number of unrecorded transactions are 147 transactions, which confirms that the operations of recording transactions did not take place according to the above-mentioned Article 24. However, the Expert omitted investigation of the said objections. Appellant demanded the court of subject matter in two degrees thereof to mandate a new expert or to return the assignment to the expert previously mandated to investigate objections thereof regarding the operations of registering and trades. However, the appealed judgment omitted and did not discuss the said demand. Appellant adhered before the court of subject matter with the annulment of the operations conducted by Appellee due to violation of the generalizations issued by department of operation and control within Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange, Central Bank Law, and the laws, which organises trading and practicing financing, which provides necessity of strict comply with not preventing clients to purchase directly without availability of liquid money needed to cover purchase operations. The license given to mediators is a license to practice mediation without financing. The mandated expert confirmed that Appellee financed the transactions of Appellant by over drafting during the term of transaction, without depositing any amounts of transactions in advance. However, the appealed judgment concluded non-annulment of the trading transactions, and the whole matter is limited to imposing disciplinary penalties to the mediators. Besides, Appellant adhered with the fact mentioned within the report of the expert that fraudulence and cheating was made by Appellee, which is represented in retaining two balances for each client by Appellee. One of the two balances includes the amount of the real credit and the other one includes the amount of the fallacious credit after adding facilities thereto, in a violation to the law. Appellee did not notify Appellant with the same. Appellee was notifying Appellant only with the other credit when calling to conduct a transaction. The real credit is sent to Appellant as a debt account, which is deemed as a violation to the operations of recording, which are provided within Above-mentioned Article No. 24, which leads to annulment of such operations. However, the appealed judgment omitted such defence, too. The above-mentioned defects judgment and leads the same to be revoked. The said objection is totally incorrect. It is established that essential aspects of defense, which the court of subject matter is obligated to discuss and reply with special grounds, are the aspects of defense, which in case of validity thereof may change the point of view regarding the claim. The aspect of defence is not deemed as the same unless relying on basis of law. The text of Article 24 of Law No. 4/2000 regarding Emirates Securities & Commodities Authority provides that: (1) All transactions related to listed securities shall be recorded within the records of the market. (2) The entity, which transaction is conducted regarding securities thereof outside the market, shall be committed with the transactions related such securities according to the rules applicable and issued by the council. (3) Each transaction regarding securities listed within the market, which is not recorded according to the provisions herein, as well as the regulations and decisions issued in execution of the law). This means annulment of each transaction within the securities listed within the market, which is not registered within the records of this market.). Appellant did not allege that the transactions of trade, which are subject of dispute, are not registered within the records of the market. The documents lack any evidence to prove the same. Arguments arisen by Appellant, which are related to annulment of trading transactions recorded on (CD), are not related to registering of the transaction regarding securities within the records of securities and commodities market. Violation thereof shall not result in annulment, which is provided within above-mentioned Article 24. Annulment is not concluded unless by evidencing that records of the market lack a record of the transactions, which are conducted to the securities, which are listed within the market. The documents lacked the said evidence. Appellant's defence in this regard is not relying on a correct base. Therefore, the appealed judgment shall not be deemed as defective in case of not replying the same. The text of Article 69 of Code of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions, regarding mandating one expert or more to seek assistance thereof in the matters required for settlement of the claim is a permission granted by legislator to the court. Therefore, the court shall not be objected in case of not practicing the same in case of being convinced with the report of the expert mandated thereby within the claim, and in case the court within the limits of the discretion thereof decided to adopt such report for being convinced with the validity of the grounds thereof, and the court decides that there is no need to mandate other expert or experts. The court shall not be controlled in this regard. Thereafter, the court shall not be obligated to reply independently to the objections, which are addressed to the report, as court's adoption of the report of the expert relying on the grounds thereof, means that the court did not Copyright 2025: Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Page 6 reach any conclusion, which may need a reply with more than the reply of the report. The judgment of Court of First Instance approved by the appealed judgment, established judgment thereof to obligate Appellant with the judged amount relying on being convinced with the report of the mandated expert, which concluded that Appellant and Appellee did not comply with the condition of the transaction agreement entered into there-between. The said agreement provides essentially the obligation to deposit the amount of the transaction required to be executed within the account of the company before execution of the transaction. Appellee financed Appellant through overdraft during the term of dealing there between. Appellee has a real balance, which represents the truth of the financial position of the client, whether Creditor or Debtor. In addition, Appellee has another balance, which is valid for transaction of the client, after adding the value of the credit facilities given through overdraft granted to the client from the company. Transactions of trading stocks are not permitted to be financed through over draft except for 48 hours. However, it is clear through the account statements of Appellant at Appellee that the same is not practiced along the term of transaction there-between, and under knowledge of Appellant and Appellee. In exception of the above-mentioned, all transactions conducted to Appellant's account are confirmed to be correct and that Appellee is entitled to an amount of AED 965641/58 to be collected from Appellant. The appealed judgment referred within the grounds thereof to the judgment of the court of First Instance. The appealed judgment added in reply to defence of Appellant that the decision No. 1/2000 issued by Securities & Commodities Authority regarding the regulations of Mediators lacked provision to prevent Mediator to purchase stokes in instalments in the name of a client. Article 18 of same law, in section eleven thereof obligated Mediator to fulfil all obligations arising from transactions, which such Mediator mediates in entering into within the terms determined for the same, in addition to settlement of obligations thereof within the market according to practices thereof; regardless the situation whether such Mediator received amounts thereof from the clients or not. Moreover, Article 31 of the Decision of Securities & Commodities Authority No. 2/2001, obligated Mediator in case of purchasing securities in the name of one of the investors and for account thereof to pay the additional amount payable thereby according to the report issued for the clearance, which conducts settlement transactions within the term determined by the market, provided that such term shall not exceed end of working day of the next day of trade. Then the amounts shall be settled directly between Mediator and client, according to the agreement there-between. Besides, violation of professional obligations of Mediators shall not result in annulment of selling transactions or cancellation of the transaction, which is conducted correctly. However, the disciplinary penalties – provided within Article 20 of the decision No. 1/2000 – shall be imposed, to the Mediator. It is clear through the report of the expert that all violations, which has been conducted, are related to the credit, which is granted by Appellee to Appellant. The report did not mention that such transaction are not recorded within the records of the market. Besides, all transactions conducted to the account of Appellant, whether regarding selling or purchase were correct, and were conducted by knowledge of Appellant. Appellee was having a full authorization from Appellant for every matter, in addition to notifying Appellant with every matter, which has been executed. Accordingly, Appellee is not accountable for any loss arising from the transactions of selling and purchasing stocks, as long as such transactions had been conducted correctly, and in accordance with the client's orders. Through the above-mentioned, it is clear that the court of subject matter, through the authority thereof in understanding facts and assessment of the evidences thereof in addition to conclusion aspects of right, has established judgment thereof relying on the conclusions of the report of the mandated expert, which the court is convinced by, due to correct researches, and discussing Appellant's aspects of defence arisen within the two grounds of objections, which are omitted by judgment according to the reasonable and correct grounds mentioned thereby, which does not include any contradiction and accordingly the judgment might be led to the result concluded thereby. Therefore, the judgment shall not be deemed as defective in case omitting the demand of Appellant to mandate new experts or return the assignment to the expert previously mandated, as long as the report and documents of the claim indicates sufficient evidences to compose opinion of the court, and to describe the aspect of right therein. Therefore, objection of the appealed judgment for such reasons shall be deemed as baseless. Appellant objects the appealed judgment within the fourth Ground of Appeal by misapplication of the law. Appellee violated the law of the securities' authority, by non-obtaining written or telephone approval of Appellant for all trading transactions, which were conducted in violation to Article 5/A of the decision of Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange for the year 2008, issued regarding the Securities' Trading Transactions, which prohibits Mediator to enter any orders of selling or purchasing for the interest of any client thereof, unless upon an authorization of the client, which authorizes mediator to conduct such transaction, as well as Article 9/B of the instructions, which obligates mediator to resell or repurchase the concerned securities or any part thereof to return the case to the first condition thereof, in case any order is executed in a violating form. However, the appealed judgment replied the defence that such violations leads to annulment of the trading transactions by stating that the same requires imposing of disciplinary penalties to Appellee. The above-mentioned defects judgment and leads the same to be revoked. It is established as a principal that the aspect of defence, which is not provided to the court of subject matter, shall not be arisen before the court of cassation. The documents of the claim lacked any evidence that Appellant Copyright 2025: Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Page 7 adhered before the court of subject matter or within the explanatory memorandum regarding grounds of appeal, with the decision of Abu Dhabi Securities Exchange for the year 2008, which is issued regarding the transactions of trading securities nor Appellee's violation to the same. Therefore, objecting the judgment in this regard shall be deemed as a new aspect of defence that should not be provided for the first time to the court of cassation. Copyright 2025: Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved. Page 8