19 April 2026

Law No. (6) of 2014 on the Regulation of Real Estate Development created a specialised forum for off-plan disputes. The Real Estate Development Dispute Resolution Committee is empowered under Article 33(1) of the Law to decide, on an expedited basis, disputes arising from real estate development activity. The Committee was formally constituted by Council of Ministers Decision No. (26) of 2025, published in the Official Gazette on 11 September 2025.

Separately, Law No. (21) of 2021 established the Investment and Trade Court with exclusive jurisdiction over commercial contract disputes that are not assigned to specialised committees.

When a purchaser sues a real estate company for non-delivery of an off-plan unit, the practical question is where to file. The Court of Cassation answered the question directly in Appeal No. 253/2026, issued on 4 March 2026.

The Facts

Two claimants had entered into two reservation agreements for a multi-use unit in an off-plan project. The first agreement was dated 12 October 2020 with a contractual handover date of 16 May 2022. The second, dated 9 April 2023, substituted the first claimant as buyer and moved the handover to 30 October 2023. Neither date was met.

The claimants filed before the Investment and Trade Court seeking rescission of the reservation agreements, refund of sums paid, compensation, and return of five security cheques. On 17 December 2025 the court declined jurisdiction. It held that the dispute fell within the scope of Law No. (6) of 2014 and should be heard by the Real Estate Development Dispute Resolution Committee.

The claimants refiled before the Committee. On 28 January 2026 the Committee also declined jurisdiction. Neither ruling was appealed, so both became final. The claimants applied to the Court of Cassation to resolve the negative conflict of jurisdiction.

The Court's Analysis

The Cassation Court held that jurisdiction of the Real Estate Development Committee is conditioned on two cumulative requirements. The subject matter of the dispute must arise from real estate development activity as defined in Law No. (6) of 2014. And at least one of the parties must qualify as a "Developer" within the meaning of Article 1 of the Law, which requires (i) a licence issued by the Licensing Committee under Article 3bis and (ii) entry in the Real Estate Developers' Register under Article 6.

Where either condition is absent, the Committee has no jurisdiction, irrespective of how the contract is characterised by the parties.

On the facts, the defendants were two commercial companies. Neither was listed in the Real Estate Developers' Register maintained by the General Authority for the Regulation of the Real Estate Sector (Aqarat). Neither held a licence under the 2014 Law. The statutory definition of "Developer" was therefore not satisfied.

The Court turned to the nature of the contracts. Article 9 of the Commercial Law (Law No. (27) of 2006) presumes that contracts entered into by a merchant are commercial, and Article 12(2) treats any commercial company as a merchant. The reservation agreements were therefore commercial. Under Article 7(2) of Law No. (21) of 2021, jurisdiction over commercial contract disputes lies with the Investment and Trade Court.

The Court assigned jurisdiction to the Investment and Trade Court.

What the Ruling Means in Practice

The judgment establishes a licensing test. The specialised Committee is reserved for disputes that fall within the regulatory perimeter of Law No. (6) of 2014, which begins with a valid licence. A company marketing and selling off-plan units without a licence operates outside that perimeter. Claims against such a company proceed in the ordinary courts, and where the contract is commercial, in the Investment and Trade Court.

For purchasers, the point is significant. A number of entities selling off-plan units in Qatar continue to operate without registration in the Developers' Register. A claim against such an entity filed before the Committee will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with the attendant loss of time. Early diligence on the defendant's regulatory status avoids the problem.

For developers, the ruling is a reminder that the licensing framework is being applied. Aqarat has activated the Licensing Committee, the Developers' Register is populated, and the Preliminary Real Estate Registry introduced by Ministerial Decision No. (4) of 2026 formalises purchasers' pre-handover interests. Operating outside the licensing framework carries commercial exposure and, under Article 29 of the Law, criminal exposure as well.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

18 April 2026

Qatari nationals are sometimes asked to sign leases on behalf of foreign-owned companies or other individuals. Landlords occasionally prefer the added comfort of a Qatari signatory. The arrangement is convenient while the relationship is working. It becomes a problem when rent falls into arrears and the landlord enforces against the person named on the lease, rather than the actual occupier.

A recent Civil Court of First Instance ruling (issued in early 2026 and now final, no appeal having been taken within the statutory window) illustrates how Qatari law resolves the situation, and how the named tenant can recover the amounts paid.

The Facts

The plaintiff, a Qatari national, signed a lease in September 2021 for workers' accommodation in the Industrial Area of Doha. He did so at the request of a trading company whose manager provided a written acknowledgment confirming that the company was the real tenant and the party responsible for the rent and other obligations of the lease.

The company fell into arrears. The landlord sued the named tenant and obtained a 2024 judgment for rescission of the lease, eviction, and payment of the outstanding rent plus accruing rent. After the judgment, the company issued a second acknowledgment reiterating the same arrangement and undertaking to settle directly with the landlord. It did not do so.

When the landlord enforced the judgment against the plaintiff, the plaintiff settled with the landlord and obtained discontinuance of the enforcement file. He then sued the trading company and two individuals associated with it to recover the sum.

The Court's Analysis

The Court proceeded from the standard framework. Article 171(1) of the Civil Code treats a contract as the law of the parties. Article 172(1) requires performance in good faith. Article 211 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law places the burden on the creditor to prove the obligation. Under Article 220, a signed private document (المحرر العرفي) is considered to have been issued by the signatory unless the signature is expressly denied.

On evidence, the Court applied settled Cassation authority (Appeal No. 9 of 2010) holding that copies of private documents carry no independent evidentiary weight unless they can be linked to an original. At the hearing, the plaintiff's counsel produced the original of the acknowledgment, signed by the manager in his representative capacity and stamped with the company's seal. None of the defendants appeared to challenge it.

The acknowledgment established the operative fact: the trading company was the real tenant of the property, its manager had handled the rental relationship with the landlord, and the arrears for which the plaintiff had been pursued were in truth the company's arrears.

On quantum, the Court applied Articles 263 and 268 of the Civil Code. A debtor's delay in paying a sum owed causes damage to the creditor, and Article 268 vests the court with discretion to award compensation where warranted. The Court awarded the full sum paid to the landlord, together with additional compensation.

The Claim Against the Individuals

The claim against the two individual defendants was rejected. The written acknowledgment identified the trading company as the obligor. The document did not bind the individuals jointly and severally with the company, and no separate legal basis for personal liability was established. A company's separate legal personality is respected by default.

Takeaways

The decision makes two practical points. First, a private written acknowledgment is an effective evidentiary tool, but its weight depends on production of the original. A party in a position like the plaintiff's should retain the original and should not rely on photocopies, which carry no independent weight under Cassation authority. Second, pursuing a company's manager or officer personally requires a specific statutory or factual basis. Involvement in the negotiation or execution of the contract, without more, is not enough to overcome the corporate veil.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

12 April 2026

Investors in small or joint ventures often fund a counterpart who takes on the operational and regulatory tasks: incorporation, licensing, fit-out, branding, operation. When the counterpart performs one element of the obligation and stops short of the rest, the question is whether the investor can treat the contract as breached and recover what has been paid. A recent final ruling of the Investment and Trade Court, issued in late 2025 and not appealed, answers the question in the affirmative.

The Facts

The plaintiff agreed to invest in a commercial venture with the defendants. The understanding was that the defendants would use the funds to establish the operational entity, obtain required approvals, prepare the location, and commence trading. The plaintiff would participate in the resulting business.

The defendants extracted a commercial registration in the name of a juice-corner cafeteria. That was all. The location was not prepared, operations were not commenced, and the plaintiff was not added as a shareholder or director of the new entity. Correspondence produced at trial confirmed the receipt of the funds and the understanding that they would be used for the project's set-up.

The plaintiff served a formal notice demanding either execution of the contract or refund of the sums paid. The defendants did not respond. The plaintiff filed for rescission, restitution, and compensation.

The Court's Analysis

The Court applied the standard rescission framework. Article 171(1) of the Civil Code provides that a contract is the law of the parties. Article 183(1) provides that, in bilateral contracts, where one party fails to perform, the other party may, after service of notice, apply to the court for rescission with compensation where warranted. Article 185 provides that, upon rescission, the parties are restored to their pre-contractual position, with compensation available where restoration is impossible.

The Court treated the defendant's obligation as an indivisible one. The contract required multiple steps, of which only one (the commercial registration) had been performed. The burden of proving full performance sits on the party asserting it. The defendants, although represented at the hearings, produced no evidence of further steps. Extraction of a commercial registration did not, on its own, discharge the obligation.

The Court ordered rescission. The defendant company was required to refund the full invested sum, with additional compensation for the material and moral harm resulting from the non-performance. The judgment was ordered to be immediately enforceable, with bond, consistent with the treatment of commercial matters under the Judicial Execution Law.

The Claim Against the Manager

The claim against the individual manager was rejected. The Court reiterated the orthodox position under Qatari company law. A company has a separate legal personality. A manager who signs a contract on behalf of a company does so in a representative capacity, not a personal one. Qatari law provides specific routes for pursuing a manager personally in defined circumstances, but the plaintiff had not pleaded a basis of that kind. A general request for joint liability, without more, cannot overcome the corporate veil.

Takeaways

Two points emerge. First, partial execution of a multi-step contractual obligation is not performance. A counterpart who funds a project and receives only a commercial registration in return is entitled to treat the contract as breached and pursue rescission with restitution. Second, a claim seeking to hold a company's manager personally liable must be pleaded on specific statutory grounds. Reliance on the manager's general involvement in the transaction is not enough.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.

5 April 2026

Unpaid commercial invoices are among the most common matters reaching the Investment and Trade Court. A recent final ruling of the Third Department, issued in early 2026 and not appealed, illustrates the evidentiary standards applied, the treatment of technical defences, and the approach to compensation for delayed payment.

The Facts

The plaintiff, a wholesale supplier, entered into a business-development agreement in 2024 with the defendant, a retail operator, for the supply of goods to the defendant's outlets. The plaintiff delivered the goods and issued invoices signed and stamped by the defendant's personnel. An outstanding balance accumulated. The plaintiff served a final notice which went unanswered, and subsequently filed for the principal debt, compensation for loss caused by the delay, costs, and immediate execution.

The defendant raised two defences. First, a standing objection: the defendant's trade name on the statement of claim was said not to match its registered name. Second, a challenge to the evidence: the invoices had been produced as photocopies and, on the defendant's submission, should not be admitted as proof.

The Court's Analysis

The Court rejected both defences. On the identity point, the commercial registration number shown on the contract and on the stamped purchase orders matched the defendant's own registration. A surface difference in the way the trade name was written did not defeat the claim where the underlying registration was consistent. On the evidentiary point, Article 86 of the Commercial Law (Law No. 27 of 2006) permits all methods of proof in commercial matters, whatever the value of the transaction, unless the law provides otherwise. The photocopied invoices, combined with the contract, the bank statements, and the stamped purchase orders, formed an adequate evidentiary record.

The Court appointed a financial expert. The expert met with both sides, reviewed the contract, the invoices, and the commercial books, and confirmed the outstanding balance due to the plaintiff. The Court adopted the expert's findings, consistent with the settled approach of accepting properly-reasoned expert reports that are supported by the record.

Compensation for Delay

The Court applied Article 268 of the Civil Code. Where the subject of an obligation is a sum of money and the debtor fails to pay after notice, the court may award compensation to the creditor on proof of damage. Consistent with Cassation authority, the Court treated service of the statement of claim as a formal notice for the purposes of Article 268.

On the facts, the defendant's withholding of payment caused the plaintiff loss of the use of the funds, the cost of pursuing collection, and the intangible harm of being denied what was owed. The Court awarded compensation in addition to the principal balance due. The judgment was ordered to be immediately enforceable with bond, reflecting that commercial matters enjoy immediate execution by operation of law.

Takeaways

Three practical points follow. First, commercial creditors benefit from the flexible evidentiary regime under Article 86 of the Commercial Law, which accepts copies of documents where supported by the wider record. A contract, purchase orders with entity stamps, and bank transfer records together form a strong combined proof. Second, identity defences based on trade-name discrepancies rarely succeed where the commercial registration number is consistent across the documents. Drafting contracts with reference to the registration number forecloses this line of argument. Third, compensation for delayed payment under Article 268 is a real remedy and should be pleaded as a matter of course. The statement of claim itself can serve as the formal notice on which the Article depends.

This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.