Claim for refund of Dhs526,000 for unused hotel nights rejected

Dubai Civil Court has dismissed a lawsuit seeking the recovery of Dhs526,000 in unused nights in a hotel suite in Jumeirah along with Dhs200,000 in compensation for material and moral harms.

The court ordered the plaintiff to bear all legal charges, expenses and lawyer’s fees, basing its decision on an addendum to an agreement, which stipulated that the value of any remaining nights be retained as a credit for future stays.

The case dated back to a long-term stay agreement concluded in October of last year, covering a one-year period and including both a Royal Suite and a Junior Suite for Dhs2.96 million that was paid in full alongside a deposit for long-term stay and incidental expenses.

In March 2026, the damage appeared on the walls and ceilings, the presence of insects and ongoing painting and renovation work in one of the suites rendered the unit unusable according to the agreed-upon services and specifications.

This prompted a complaint, particularly as no alternative suite with equivalent specifications was provided during the maintenance period and ultimately led the guest to check out of the hotel in March 2026.

The claim was based on photographs of the damage and electronic correspondence concerning restoration work and the development of certain areas before the course of the dispute changed following the signing of an addendum to the agreement in April 2026.

The court stated that an addendum to the agreement provided for an early check-out from Suite 803, with the value of the unused nights amounting to Dhs526,000 inclusive of taxes and fees retained as a credit toward a future stay in the Royal Suite.

It was determined that this addendum constituted a binding agreement between the parties and that consenting to convert the amount into credit for a future stay did not support a claim for a cash refund.

Furthermore, it was noted that the correspondence regarding restoration work took place after the addendum had been signed and did not alter the effect of the amended agreement.

The court rejected the claim for compensation, as the elements of fault, harm and a causal link were not established. It also denied the request to appoint an expert, having found sufficient evidence in the submitted documents to form its judgment and resolve the dispute.