Dubai court orders firm to pay travel agency Dhs2.8 m in outstanding dues

Airline ticket and hotel bookings arranged for executives and clients of a precious metals trading firm have led to a legal dispute after unpaid invoices for several months of services reached approximately Dhs2.87 million.

The Dubai Commercial Court ordered the company that benefited from the services to pay the full amount, plus 5% annual interest, and upheld a precautionary attachment on its assets to secure repayment.

The business relationship began when a travel and tourism agency received requests to book flights and arrange hotel accommodation for clients of a Dubai-based company specialising in precious metals and general trading. The services were provided between November 2024 and April 2025, leaving an outstanding balance of $781,541, equivalent to approximately Dhs2.87 million.

The agency filed a lawsuit seeking to hold an executive and three affiliated companies jointly and severally liable for the debt. It supported its claim with service records and WhatsApp correspondence that included an acknowledgment of the debt and a promise to pay.

The defendants argued that the transactions involved a separate company based in the United States, not the entities named in the lawsuit. They also cited a mandatory arbitration clause in a service agreement with that US-based company and disputed both the debt and the validity of the documents submitted as evidence.

The court appointed an expert to examine the documents and bank transfers. He found that a commercial relationship existed between the agency and one of the defendant companies for travel booking and air transport services, supported by earlier transfers from that company’s bank account to the agency. The report also confirmed that the claimed amount remained outstanding, with no evidence of payment.

The expert found no evidence of a commercial relationship or financial obligations involving the executive or the other two companies. Nor was there proof that those companies had approved the service details, received related notifications or issued purchase orders.

The court accepted the expert’s findings and rejected the jurisdictional challenge based on the arbitration clause, finding no evidence that the agreement with the US-based company applied to the parties in this dispute. It ruled that the company that benefited from the services was solely liable for $781,541, or its equivalent in UAE dirhams, plus 5% annual interest from the date the lawsuit was filed in July 2026 until payment in full.