Al Marri & El Hage Law Offices

23/02/2026

صدر عن محكمة الاستئناف لدى محكمة الاستثمار والتجارة القطرية بتاريخ 18 فبراير 2026 حكم له أهمية تتجاوز الوقائع المرتبطة بحادث مركبة بعينها، إذ يُعد تأكيدًا بارزًا لجملة من المبادئ الجوهرية التي تحكم المسؤولية التعاقدية وسلطة القضاء في تقدير الأدلة والآثار القانونية المترتبة على العقود. فبالرغم من أن النزاع نشأ عن واقعة احتراق مركبة تم شراؤها حديثًا، إلا أن قيمة الحكم تكمن في ما قرره من قواعد عامة تتعلق بالتزامات الضمان، وتوزيع المخاطر، وتقييم الأدلة، والآثار القانونية المترتبة على فسخ العقد، أكثر مما تكمن في ملابساته الواقعية ذاتها.
وقد أكدت محكمة الاستئناف، بتأييدها لحكم محكمة الدرجة الأولى، عددًا من المبادئ الراسخة التي تمتد آثارها إلى ما هو أبعد من السياق المرتبط بقطاع السيارات. فقد شددت على أن الاستئناف ينقل النزاع برمّته إلى محكمة الدرجة الثانية لإعادة بحثه من حيث الواقع والقانون، ورسّخت الطبيعة الملزمة للضمانات التعاقدية الممتدة وما يترتب عليها من نقل عبء المخاطر إلى البائع خلال فترة الضمان، كما أعادت التأكيد على أن ضمان العيوب الخفية يظل التزامًا قانونيًا أصيلًا ملازمًا لعقد البيع.
وفي الوقت ذاته، أوضح الحكم نطاق السلطة التقديرية للمحكمة في تقدير تقارير الخبرة وتقييم عناصر الضرر وتحديد التعويض المناسب، وكذلك في تقرير الأثر القانوني لانقضاء الالتزام الأصلي على المطالبة المرتبطة به، بما في ذلك الشيكات الصادرة ضمانًا له.

وفي منطوق الحكم الاستئنافي وقضائه، تمّ تأييد حكم المحكمة الابتدائية الصادر لصالح موكلنا حيث أكّد الحكم على المبادئ القانونية الأساسية المتعلقة بالضمانات التعاقدية، وسلطة المحكمة في تقدير الأدلة، وتوزيع المخاطر بين البائع والمشتري، من حيث:
• نقل الاستئناف النزاع برمّته إلى محكمة الاستئناف، التي تنظر فيه من جديد وتفصل في الوقائع والقانون معًا.
• الضمان التعاقدي الممتد ينقل خطر ظهور العيب إلى البائع خلال فترة الضمان، حتى ولو لم يتم تحديد السبب الفني الدقيق للعيب بشكل قاطع.
• يظل التزام البائع بضمان العيوب الخفية التزامًا قانونيًا ملازمًا لعقد البيع، ويستمر حتى بعد استلام المشتري للمبيع، متى كان العيب موجودًا وقت التسليم، أو كان سببه سابقًا على البيع ولو ظهر لاحقًا.
• تقارير الخبراء تُعد من عناصر الإثبات التي تخضع لتقدير المحكمة، دون أن تكون ملزمة لها.
• يرتبط تنفيذ الشيك بصحة الالتزام الأصلي؛ فإذا زال سبب الالتزام أو سقط الحق في المطالبة به بحكم قضائي، فلا تستقيم المطالبة بقيمة الشيك قانونًا.
 أن القضاء بقيمة السيارة وقت البيع لا يُعد تعويضًا عن هلاك لاحق فحسب، بل هو أثر مترتب على زوال عقد البيع وهلاك المبيع، بما يعيد المتعاقدين إلى الحالة التي كانا عليها قبل التعاقد.
 أن تقدير التعويضات يندرج ضمن السلطة التقديرية الواسعة لمحكمة الموضوع، وفقًا لما تراه مناسبًا لجبر الضرر، ما دام تقديرها قائمًا على أسباب سائغة تكفي لحمله.

وعليه، فإن هذا الحكم يُعد إسهامًا قضائيًا مهمًا في قطر في ترسيخ مبدأ التوازن العقدي وتحقيق العدالة التعويضية، مؤكدًا أن غاية التعويض وفسخ العقد ليست الجزاء أو العقاب، وإنما إعادة الأطراف – قدر الإمكان – إلى الحالة التي كانوا عليها قبل التعاقد.

A recent judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal at the Investment and Trade Court on 18 February 2026 offers a significant reaffirmation of core principles governing contractual liability and judicial authority. While the dispute arose from a dispute concerning warranty obligations and compensation for the total loss of a recently purchased vehicle, the ruling is notable for the clarity with which it consolidates foundational principles relating to warranty obligations, allocation of risk, evidentiary assessment, and the legal consequences of contract termination.
In upholding the First Instance judgment, the Court of Appeal articulated several enduring principles that extend well beyond the automotive context. The decision underscores the nature of appellate review as a full reconsideration of both fact and law, reinforces the binding force of extended contractual warranties in reallocating risk during the warranty period, and reaffirms that the seller’s guarantee against hidden defects remains an inherent legal obligation within the contract of sale. At the same time, the Court clarified the discretionary role of the judiciary in evaluating expert evidence, assessing damages, and determining the legal effect of the extinction of underlying obligations on related negotiable instruments.
The Appeal judgment reaffirmed the following fundamental legal principles relating to contractual warranties, the court’s discretion in evaluating evidence, and the allocation of risk between the seller and the buyer:
• An appeal transfers the dispute in its entirety to the Court of Appeal, which re-examines the case and adjudicates both facts and law.
• An extended contractual warranty shifts the risk of the defect’s appearance to the seller during the warranty period, even if the precise technical cause of the defect is not definitively established.
• The seller’s obligation to guarantee hidden defects remains a legal obligation inherent in the contract of sale and continues even after the buyer has taken delivery of the sold item, provided that the defect existed at the time of delivery or that its cause predated the sale, even if it manifested later.
• Expert reports constitute elements of evidence subject to the court’s discretion and are not binding upon it.
• The enforcement of a cheque is intrinsically linked to the validity of the underlying obligation; if the basis of the obligation ceases to exist or the right to claim it is extinguished by a judicial ruling, a claim for the cheque amount cannot legally stand.
• the assessment of damages falls within the broad discretionary authority of the trial court, in accordance with what it deems appropriate to redress the harm, provided that its assessment is supported by reasonable grounds.
• The award of the value of the vehicle at the time of sale does not merely constitute compensation for a subsequent loss; rather, it is a legal consequence of the termination of the sale contract and the destruction of the sold item, thereby restoring the contracting parties to the position they were in prior to the contract.

Accordingly, the judgment stands as a broader judicial statement on contractual equilibrium and remedial justice, emphasizing that the function of compensation and contract termination is not punitive, but restorative -aimed at returning the parties, as far as legally possible, to the position they occupied prior to contracting.

18/02/2026

04/06/2025

QATAR - ARBITRATION AWARD - SETTING ASIDE APPLICATION:

Recent judgment by the Qatar Court of Appeal in relation to the rejection of an application to set aside an Arbitration award:

The Qatari Court of Appeal once again showcased its arbitration-friendly stance, demonstrating its strict adherence to the provisions of the Qatari Arbitration Law No. 2 of 2017 when dealing with setting aside proceedings.

The setting aside proceedings related to circa QAR1billion award issued in a construction dispute involving one of our clients (a foreign investor), following arbitration proceedings seated in Qatar.

The unsuccessful party initiated setting aside proceedings against the award based on several grounds, including the alleged violation of:

· Article 31 of the Arbitration Law, for failure to enclose a copy of the arbitration agreement;

· Public policy, for ordering interest;

· The parties’ agreement, for allegedly violating certain contractual provisions of the contract that was the subject-matter of the dispute;

· The prohibition against ruling ex aequo et bono and exceeding its powers, for assessing and granting compensation based on an expert’s reasoning without relying on the relevant provisions of Qatari law;

· The tribunal’s duty of impartiality and independence, for ruling in favor of one party without considering the other party’s defense.

In this judgment issued in May 2025, the Court of Appeal rejected the setting aside application for the following reasons:

· The applicant failed to prove that the application satisfied any of the grounds set out under Article 33 of the Qatari Arbitration Law, which are strictly limited in scope and cannot be broadly interpreted;

· The Arbitral Tribunal ruling on the substance of the dispute falls outside the scope of review by the setting aside judge unless there is a violation of public policy;

· Based on Article 5 of the Qatari Arbitration Law, where a party fails to object during the arbitration proceedings and continues to participate without reservation, it is deemed to have waived its right to rely on those grounds at the setting aside stage.

Al Marri & El Hage Law Offices are ready to assist any party involved in arbitration proceedings in Qatar, the GCC and Lebanon.

Send a message to learn more

23/05/2025

Beirut is back ! Beirut arbitration Days inaugural edition that was held from 20 to 22 May at La Maison de l'Avocat and sponsored by Al Marri & El Hage Law Offfices , was an outstanding event that puts back Lebanon as an arbitration hilub to reclaim its leadership in this field, as per the shared vision of Lebanon Prime Minister HE Nawaf Salam.

26/01/2025

The International Bar Association conference on litigating in the Middle East is around the corner on 10 February 2025 at ADGM.

Join the first panel chaired by Dr Mahmood Hussain and our Managing Partner Claudia F. El Hage with the other esteemed speakers Hend Al Mehairi, Ben Sigler, William Ho**er and Ahmad AlShorbagy for a lively interactive session and conversation where they will discuss the Litigation in the Middle East and Navigating Dispute Resolution Mechanisms – from Litigation to ADR in various jurisdictions (UAE - Qatar - Kuwait - KSA - Lebanon).

There is still time to register at ➡️ https://lnkd.in/dr8ta6cT

15/08/2024

We are pleased to inform you that Myriam Eid and Danah Mohamed of Al Marri & El Hage Law Offices have published an Article on the "Know-How Construction Arbitration (Qatar)".

This Article is published free-to-view on the Global Arbitration Review website at the following link:
https://lnkd.in/dDszaFPD

For further in-depth analysis, please visit the GAR Know-how Construction Arbitration.”

16/07/2024

Latest Case Law in French Arbitration: Arbitration & Conflict OF Interest:

In an interesting recent decision, the French Court of Cassation (Premiere Chambre Civile – Pourvoi no 23-10.972 – 19 Juin 2024) upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision (Cour d'Appel de Paris j4 - 10 Mai 2022 (n°22/00144)) to set aside an arbitral award, invoking the arbitrators’ obligation (the President of the tribunal in this case) to disclose throughout the arbitration procedure any new facts which may raise doubt as to their impartiality and independence.

The decision was made in light of significant and new revelations in a subsequent eulogy published by the President in honor of the late Prof. Emmanuel Gaillard (who represented the claimant) and notwithstanding that the Respondent had previously waived its right to challenge the President of the Tribunal’s impartiality (despite having expressed doubt about the impartiality and independence of the arbitrator during the proceedings).

The Court considered that the eulogy made by the arbitrator establishes a link between the ongoing arbitration and the close personal ties which could lead the parties to reasonably doubt the president’s impartiality and independence, and that such ties should have been disclosed by the arbitrator to enable the parties to exercise their right to challenge him.

The Court findings suggest that personal ties require disclosure throughout the arbitration, while mere academic and professional connections do not.

The Court seems to leave at the discretion of the arbitrators the task to evaluate the extent of such disclosure.

Send a message to learn more

30/04/2024

Qatar- QICDRC Appellate Division: In a very important judgment issued on 30 April 2024 ([2024]QIC(A)7), QICDRC Appellate Division considered that employment disputes between QFZA and its employees - that are considered as public employees - were NOT to be within the jurisdiction of QICDRC; the employees of QFZA were to be treated no differently to or separately from other public employees and has therefore granted permission to appeal on the issue relating to jurisdiction of QICDRC in disputes between QFZA and its employees.

The First Instance Circuit of QICDRC gave a judgment on 5 December 2022 holding that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the dispute between the Qatar Free Zone Authority (QFZA) and a former employee of QFZA.

The principal issue was as to the correct interpretation of article 44 of the QFZA Law. The First Instance held that it had jurisdiction. QFZA sought permission to appeal this decision and contended before the First Instance Circuit that the provision in article 44 of the QFZ Law did not cover disputes between the QFZA and its former employee as the provision only includes “Registered individuals”; that article 44 did not apply where there had been agreement to resolve disputes by alternative means and clause 10.4 of the employment agreement provided for such alternative means by providing for the jurisdiction of the Qatari Courts; and that under the provisions of the Administrative Disputes Law, the dispute with the former employee was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Administrative Circuit.

The Appellate Division considered that the question which arises is whether the dispute should be heard by this Court or by a different court both established by the State of Qatar and found that it is difficult to see why the QFZA or the Government of Qatar would have wanted to provide that public employees of the State would need that jurisdiction when provision was already made such as those under the Administrative Disputes Law.

Send a message to learn more

02/04/2024

Qatar Ex*****on Court’s judgment 72/2023: Rights over a pledged property

A. The Judgment

Our Office has succeeded in obtaining a Judgment on 21/2/2024 by the Ex*****on Court that dismissed a grievance filed by a bank in their capacity as the beneficiary of a pledge over a plant. The bank sought the removal of the plant from the attachment order, asserting their pledge rights over it pursuant to a pledge contract signed between the bank and the Defendant.

The Court decided that (1) Article 269 of the Qatari civil code stipulates that all the assets of a debtor serve as security for his creditors with all creditors holding equal standing, unless any of them has a preferential right, and (2) Article 1128 of the Qatari Civil Code stipulates that a pledge grants its holder priority in debt repayment from the proceeds of the pledged property over normal creditors but does not grant an exclusive right over it.

The Court upheld our Client’s defense that a pledge grants priority in debt repayment from the proceeds of the pledged property but doesn't prevent other creditors from executing against the pledged property.

B. Facts of the case

The Commercial Court ruled in favor of our client the Claimant (the “Claimant”), ordering a Defendant (the “Defendant”) to pay a specified amount for a debt.

Despite the judgment, the Defendant failed to comply, leading the Claimant to file an enforcement lawsuit before the Ex*****on Court, and seize the Defendant's assets, including a plant.

The bank, in their capacity as the beneficiary of a pledge over the plant, lodged an objection with the ex*****on Court. They demanded the removal of the plant from the attachment order, asserting their pledge rights over it. Their grievance was supported by a pledge contract signed between the bank and the Defendant. The bank argued that as the beneficiary of a pledge right, they had a real right over the factory and therefore the factory couldn't be subjected to executory attachment orders by any third party.

The Claimant responded by asserting that a pledge doesn't imply ownership but only grants priority in debt repayment from the property's proceeds. A position that was upheld by the Court.
Qatar

This Highlight gives an overview about "Qatar Ex*****on Court judgment dated 21/2/2024: Rights over a pledged property". Find out more on Chambers and Partners.

14/03/2024

Qatar - Recent Qatari Court Appeal Judgment - "Electronic submission of the arbitral award and its related exhibits doesn't negate its written nature".

قطر – حكم محكمة الاستئناف - "التقديم الإلكتروني لطلب تذييل حكم تحكيم ومستنداته لا يلغي طابعه الكتابي"

After Al Marri & El Hage Law Offices have successfully obtained leave to enforce in Qatar a foreign arbitration award issued under the aegis of the Paris Mediation and Arbitration Centre (“CMAP”) through the lately established electronic exequatur system, the Qatari enforcement court annulled the exequatur order following a challenge by the counterparty of the validity of the exequatur on the basis that Article 34 of the Arbitration Law requires that exequatur applications be made in writing. MHLO appealed this decision before the Court of Appeals on the basis that the electronic submission of the arbitral award and its related exhibits doesn't negate its written nature.

In its recent judgment dated 11 February 2024 (Appeal case ref: 2/2024) the Court of Appeal overturned the First Instance Enforcement Court decision by confirming our pleadings and confirmed that : “the fact that the application for enforcement of the arbitral award was made electronically does not negate its written nature or actual submission. Assuming otherwise contradicts the reality, considering that electronic submissions align with the adopted system in Qatari courts, including the Enforcement Court. Disputing this would imply reverting to pre-electronic system practices, an illogical view given the prevalent electronic filing of court applications.”

بعدما أن استحصل مكتبنا على قرار بتذييل حكم تحكيم أجنبي صادر عن مركز باريس للتحكيم والوساطة "CMAP” بالصيغة التنفيذية عبر نظام التنفيذ الإلكتروني الذي أُنشئ حديثًا في قطر، ألغت محكمة التنفيذ القطرية ذلك القرار بعدما اعترض الطرف المنفذ ضده على صحة قرار إعطاء الصيغة التنفيذية استنادًا إلى المادة 34 من قانون التحكيم التي تستوجب تقديم هذا الطلب كتابةً. بنتيجة الاستئناف الذي قدمناه أمام محكمة الاستئناف على سند أن التقديم الإلكتروني لطلب تذييل حكم تحكيم لا يلغي طابعه الكتاب، أصدرت محكمة الاستئناف حكم بتاريخ 11 فبراير 2024 (استئناف رقم 2/2024)، الغت بموجبه قرار محكمة التنفيذ وأكدت على " ان الطلب قد قدم الكترونيا ، ذلك لا يعنى انه لم يكن مكتوبا ، أو أنه لم يقدم فعلا لأنه افتراض يجافى حقيقة الواقع ، ومن ناحية ثانية فان تقديم الطلب الكترونيا يتفق مع النظام المتبع امام المحاكم القطرية ومن بينها محكمة التنفيذ ، ولأن القول بغير ذلك يعنى الارتداد الى ما قبل تطبيق النظام الإلكتروني بالمحاكم ، وهو ما لم يقل به أحد ولا يقره المنطق السليم ، خاصة وان جل الطلبات التي تقدم أمام المحاكم يتم تقديمها الكترونيا."

10/03/2024

Your Team truly!
After being ranked in Band 1 for Dispute Resolution in 2024, Al Marri & El Hage Law Offices have been selected for the 3rd consecutive year as Qatar Domestic Law Firm of the year by Chambers and Partners during the .

Hats off to our outstanding team under the leadership of Rashed R. al Marri and Claudia Fares El Hage and a big thank you to our clients and peers for their continous trust ...Together we will continue to thrive...

A heartfelt congratulations to all the winners .