An employee divulges her company’s secrets and sends her clients to a competitor.

The Dubai Civil Court has ordered an Asian employee to pay 25,000 dirhams to a company she worked for, as compensation for damages she caused by disclosing company secrets and sending her clients to a competing company.

In detail, a company working in the field of vehicle maintenance and repair filed a civil lawsuit against a former employee, demanding that she be obligated to pay compensation in the amount of 100 thousand dirhams for the material and moral damages she suffered.

The plaintiff said in her statement of claim that the defendant was working as a maintenance specialist, and due to her work, she disclosed her work secrets by sending customers to a competing garage, without obtaining permission from the person concerned, which harmed his company financially and morally due to the loss of customers, and the resulting disruption of the source of income.

She pointed out that she filed a criminal case against the employee, accompanied by a consulting report revealing her involvement in disclosing her work secrets without the permission of the concerned party in exchange for a commission of 200 dirhams, noting that the first-degree criminal court ruled to convict her and punished her with a fine. The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and became final due to the lack of appeal in the Court of Cassation. She submitted the final certificate of the criminal ruling issued by the Public Prosecution.

For her part, the defendant appeared in person before the court and submitted a response memorandum in which she requested that the lawsuit be dismissed for lack of validity and proof, and that the plaintiff be obligated to pay the lawsuit fees, expenses, and attorney fees.

After reviewing the papers and memoranda, the civil court explained in the grounds of its ruling that the court of subject matter – according to the established judiciary – has full authority to understand the reality of the case, evaluate the evidence and documents presented to it, and give preference to what it is satisfied with and reject the rest.

“According to the Evidence and Criminal Procedures Law and the established jurisprudence in Dubai Court of Cassation, the civil court’s commitment to the judgment issued in the criminal case is limited to what the criminal judgment has decided as a necessary decision regarding the occurrence of the act that constitutes the common basis between the civil and criminal cases, and regarding the legal description and attribution to its perpetrator. If the criminal court decides finally on these issues, the civil court must be committed, and it is forbidden to re-examine them because that would result in a violation of the conclusiveness of the previous criminal judgment, which is conclusiveness that applies to all even if they are not parties to the case.”

The court stated that it is legally stipulated, according to Article 282 of the Civil Transactions Law, that “any harm to others obligates its owner, even if he is not discerning, to guarantee the damage. It is also stipulated that the worker’s breach of his contractual obligations towards the employer by disclosing the secrets of the establishment in which he works to others is a contractual liability that is not fulfilled except by the presence of its three elements: error, harm, and a causal link between them. If one of these elements is absent, the liability is absent.”

It stated that it is also decided that unfair commercial competition is considered a harmful act that requires the perpetrator to be held liable for the damage resulting from it, as long as the injured party proves the nature of the damage that occurred to him, its elements and its extent.

The court stated that it had established, according to all the papers and documents of the case, that the plaintiff company had founded its case based on the conclusion of the criminal judgment convicting the defendant employee, which was based on the report of the consulting expert and the defendant’s confession. This judgment became final after it was upheld by the Court of Appeal, and was not appealed in the Court of Cassation. In light of the material and moral damages suffered by the plaintiff company as a result of sending its customers to another competing garage, the court finds that it is entitled to compensation, and the court estimates it, with its discretionary authority, at an amount of 25 thousand dirhams.