Yes, Qatar Energy (formerly known as Qatar Petroleum) is explicitly exempt from the application of the Qatar Civil Human Resources Law No. (15) of 2016. Article 2 of that law states that its provisions apply to civilian employees in ministries, authorities, and government institutions, “excluding those categories governed by their own employment systems... including the employees of Qatar Petroleum [now Qatar Energy].” [Citation 1][Citation 2]As a result, Qatar Energy employees are governed by the company’s own internal Human Resources Policies and Procedures, which are established by its Board of Directors. This special system applies to all employment matters such as hiring, promotions, transfers, and termination of service.The Civil Human Resources Law only applies in cases where Qatar Energy’s internal regulations do not cover the issue at hand. But if the company’s regulations address a matter, they take precedence, even if the Civil Law would be more favorable to the employee. [Citation 3][Citation 4]Conclusion:Employees of Qatar Energy are exempt from the Civil Human Resources Law and are instead subject to a special employment system issued by the company’s Board of

Yes, there are cases in the Qatari judiciary involving the death of construction workers due to falls from heights as a result of a company’s failure to provide legally mandated safety equipment. In such cases, the company has been required to compensate the worker’s family, with liability apportioned between the company and the site supervisor (whether the project manager or the safety officer).One prominent example is a case reviewed by the Court of Cassation under Appeal No. 358 of 2018. In this case, a worker fell from a high place at a construction site due to the absence of fall protection equipment (such as safety harnesses or barriers). It was established that both the safety officer and the project manager had failed to take the necessary precautions. The litigation also extended to include the insurance company.Court’s Reasoning for Apportioning Liability:The court ruled that both the safety officer and the project manager were at fault and held them jointly liable with the company (or the insurance company) to pay blood money (compensation) to the deceased worker’s heirs. The court justified this by stating that both individuals had a legal and administrative duty to ensure the availability of protective measures and adherence to occupational safety regulations at the site. Their failure to fulfill this duty directly caused the fatal accident.Details of the Court's Findings:The safety officer neglected to ensure that protective equipment (harnesses/barriers) was available for the workers.The project manager failed to supervise properly or enforce the use of safety gear among workers.The court considered that the duty of supervision and oversight also falls on the “responsible parties within the company,” not just the individuals directly involved. As such, it held all of them accountable for compensation.The insurance company was ordered to pay the blood money jointly with the others, after it was proven that the accident was covered under the insurance policy.Judgment Summary:The court held the company, the safety officer, and the project manager (or direct supervisor) liable because the negligence or failure to verify safety and preventive measures was a direct cause of the worker’s death. The compensation included the legal blood money and additional amounts pursuant to the civil compensation claim.

After reviewing the available court records, there does not appear to be a published case in Qatari courts involving a foreign employee who was contractually (in writing) promised a share in equity or stock-based compensation, and then did not receive it upon termination of employment, with the dispute resolved in a reasoned, published court judgment.The available cases cover related topics such as housing allowance, end-of-service gratuities, sponsorship transfers, and the rights of foreign employees in disputes with their employers. These cases generally discuss the importance of adhering to the written employment contract and the precedence of an institution’s internal regulations when they conflict with general labor law (as seen in cases involving QatarEnergy and others). However, there is no specific case addressing stock or equity compensation promised to a foreign employee, where the employee was terminated without receiving it and the court analyzed the nature of that contractual obligation and whether it could be enforced or denied.Legal considerations that Qatari courts typically examine in financial entitlements or compensation disputes upon termination include:The employer may be obligated to honor what is clearly and explicitly stated in the written contract.An institution’s internal policies may take precedence over general labor law if a specific regulation exists that governs the disputed issue.If the contract refers to incentives or financial compensation beyond regular salary, the right to them must be clearly documented in writing and mutually agreed upon.The issue of "fulfillment" — whether the payment or compensation was actually made — is evaluated before ruling on the matter.In administrative-type disputes, a clear provision or special agreement must exist to justify compensation for damage or to grant a financial benefit outside of regular wages.Conclusion:There is no publicly available Qatari court case concerning a written equity or ownership share compensation promised to a foreign employee that remained unfulfilled after termination, along with a court’s reasoning on whether to enforce or deny such a claim. If such a dispute arises, it is likely to be resolved based on:the clarity of the written provision,the presence of a recognized internal company policy,and the available evidence of entitlement and fulfillment.If you have the name of the company or further details about a specific case, I may be able to conduct a more targeted search. In any event, it is advisable to consult a Qatari lawyer to evaluate your contract and the enforceability of stock-related entitlements within Qatar’s labor market.

Based on the context available to me, there is no indication in the displayed excerpts of any case currently before the courts of the United Arab Emirates involving a company misclassifying expenses as capital expenditures. All the mentioned cases pertain to other issues such as the misuse of cheques, actions involving company documents, or disputes over asset ownership or execution. There is no reference to the reclassification of expenses in accounting records or a dispute over whether they are capital or revenue expenditures.If you are looking for specific information about this type of case, I recommend consulting the commercial court records or reviewing judgments issued by the courts of first instance or appeal in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, or other Emirates, or seeking advice from a lawyer specialized in accounting and commercial disputes in the UAE.

A notable dispute in the UAE's oil and gas sector involving misuse of government assets concerned a case where a company imported petroleum products, including a significant quantity purchased from the Abu Dhabi Port Authority at public auction. The company then chartered a tanker to store and blend these products for export. However, the tanker—anchored off the coast near Khor Fakkan—was seized by the coast guard and transferred to Abu Dhabi. The reason given was a suspicion that the oil cargo originated from Iraq, with no formal legal procedures initiated. It was later alleged that a rival company, acting in collusion with certain individuals, had tampered with laboratory reports to state falsely that the oil matched the specifications of Iraqi petroleum, constituting a misuse of official procedures and manipulation of assets acquired in a government-run auction process[1].

In one notable case, a bank employee—identified as Faisal Mohamed Khair Al-Najjar—collaborated with an external partner (Abdullah Said Khalifa Al-Muhiri) to unlawfully transfer funds from a client’s account. The client was a Chinese private company (Albaine Enterprise Trading Limited, based in Hong Kong). The fraudulent scheme involved the use of a commercial license in the name of “البين انتربرايز” issued from Ajman, which allowed the duo to misappropriate a total amount of approximately 36,572,317.88 AED. The matter was pursued both in criminal and civil proceedings, with the client initiating a commercial lawsuit (case no. 3769/2015) against the bank, and a criminal case subsequently filed that led to the conviction of the involved parties [1][2].

Looking at the available documentation [1], [2], [3], we find that all cases related to reckless driving addressed aspects related to failure to comply with traffic regulations, excessive speed, and failure to take necessary precautions while driving. These documents do not mention any instances in which the accused claimed that poor performance or reckless driving was the result of long working hours or resulting fatigue. If a detailed case is required that highlights this defense of long working hours, it appears that there is no current material in the available context that mentions it. To ensure information about a case of this nature, it is advisable to consult more up-to-date legal sources or consult a legal specialist in the UAE.

One notable dispute involves an employee who, under an indefinite employment contract entered into in 2011, was promised a stock-based compensation package. The package was to include a grant of 250,000 shares issued by one of the group's companies based in the Cayman Islands. However, as the dispute shows, although the employee received 100,000 shares, the remaining shares were not delivered. Moreover, the employee’s salary was suspended in December 2019 without any legal justification, and his other labour remuneration claims were not settled accordingly. This dispute eventually led to the matter being filed as case number 3225 of 2021 (partial labour) before the Dubai Primary Court [1].

Below is an overview of three decisions – as they can be drawn from the available summaries – in which one or more of the accused parties (or some of the defendants) ended up not bearing liability (or bearing only a reduced share) in connection with allegations arising from non‐adherence to proper site safety measures. It is important to note that in many cases involving breaches of safety protocols the courts ultimately ruled in favor of the injured party; however, within multi‐party disputes the courts at times dismissed or lessened the claim against one or more defendants. For example:In one case the project’s left side tilted so that when a structural element fell the injured party suffered severe, irreversible damage. Although the operator responsible for site security was found criminally liable, the civil suit was brought against several parties. The court eventually rejected the claim “in its entirety” against the fourth defendant—whose role was to provide insurance coverage—and confirmed that, on the basis of contractual and evidentiary analysis, that party was not held liable for compensating the injured party. In effect, the insurance company (defendant) secured a favorable ruling on its side of the dispute even though other participants were ordered to pay damages [10].In another decision heard in a multi‑defendant suit, a worker suffered significant injuries after falling from a platform that did not meet prescribed safety standards. Even though the on‑site supervisor and the construction company were found to be negligent, the court’s detailed review of the evidence led to a splitting of responsibility. On appeal, certain defendants (namely, those whose direct involvement in setting up or supervising the platform was less clear) saw their portion of the liability substantially reduced – effectively “sheltering” them from the full burden of the claim. This outcome meant that one or more defendants were, at least in part, awarded about non‑liability on account of evidentiary findings regarding the precise nature of the safety breach and their contractual roles [4, 9].In a further matter brought before the higher courts (with part of the proceedings appearing before a Federal Supreme Court review), the factual record showed that insufficient safety measures had contributed to an accident on a construction site. While the lower court had imposed a full compensation order against all alleged responsible parties, subsequent appellate review examined factors such as contributory negligence and the scope of the site operators’ responsibility in providing safe working conditions. As a result, the appellate determination modified the initial award so that for one of the defendants the claim was either dismissed or its monetary burden significantly curtailed. In that decision the defendant’s argument that, under the applicable contractual and regulatory framework, they should not be held solely responsible was given weight by the reviewing judges [5].It is worth stressing that these summaries illustrate scenarios where—even in an environment of stringent safety requirements—the multi‑party nature of the dispute and detailed fact‐finding sometimes resulted in a “winning” outcome (or a reduction in exposure) for one or more defendants. Because the available snapshots come from complex proceedings with overlapping criminal and civil issues, anyone relying on these case aspects should review the full decisions and confirm their applicability with up‑to‑date legal advice from a licensed attorney.

Yes, there are cases in the Qatari judiciary involving the death of construction workers due to falls from heights as a result of a company’s failure to provide legally mandated safety equipment. In such cases, the company has been required to compensate the worker’s family, with liability apportioned between the company and the site supervisor (whether the project manager or the safety officer).One prominent example is a case reviewed by the Court of Cassation under Appeal No. 358 of 2018. In this case, a worker fell from a high place at a construction site due to the absence of fall protection equipment (such as safety harnesses or barriers). It was established that both the safety officer and the project manager had failed to take the necessary precautions. The litigation also extended to include the insurance company.Court’s Reasoning for Apportioning Liability:The court ruled that both the safety officer and the project manager were at fault and held them jointly liable with the company (or the insurance company) to pay blood money (compensation) to the deceased worker’s heirs. The court justified this by stating that both individuals had a legal and administrative duty to ensure the availability of protective measures and adherence to occupational safety regulations at the site. Their failure to fulfill this duty directly caused the fatal accident.Details of the Court's Findings:The safety officer neglected to ensure that protective equipment (harnesses/barriers) was available for the workers.The project manager failed to supervise properly or enforce the use of safety gear among workers.The court considered that the duty of supervision and oversight also falls on the “responsible parties within the company,” not just the individuals directly involved. As such, it held all of them accountable for compensation.The insurance company was ordered to pay the blood money jointly with the others, after it was proven that the accident was covered under the insurance policy.Judgment Summary:The court held the company, the safety officer, and the project manager (or direct supervisor) liable because the negligence or failure to verify safety and preventive measures was a direct cause of the worker’s death. The compensation included the legal blood money and additional amounts pursuant to the civil compensation claim.

Yes, Qatar Energy (formerly known as Qatar Petroleum) is explicitly exempt from the application of the Qatar Civil Human Resources Law No. (15) of 2016. Article 2 of that law states that its provisions apply to civilian employees in ministries, authorities, and government institutions, “excluding those categories governed by their own employment systems... including the employees of Qatar Petroleum [now Qatar Energy].” [Citation 1][Citation 2]As a result, Qatar Energy employees are governed by the company’s own internal Human Resources Policies and Procedures, which are established by its Board of Directors. This special system applies to all employment matters such as hiring, promotions, transfers, and termination of service.The Civil Human Resources Law only applies in cases where Qatar Energy’s internal regulations do not cover the issue at hand. But if the company’s regulations address a matter, they take precedence, even if the Civil Law would be more favorable to the employee. [Citation 3][Citation 4]Conclusion:Employees of Qatar Energy are exempt from the Civil Human Resources Law and are instead subject to a special employment system issued by the company’s Board of

After reviewing the available court records, there does not appear to be a published case in Qatari courts involving a foreign employee who was contractually (in writing) promised a share in equity or stock-based compensation, and then did not receive it upon termination of employment, with the dispute resolved in a reasoned, published court judgment.The available cases cover related topics such as housing allowance, end-of-service gratuities, sponsorship transfers, and the rights of foreign employees in disputes with their employers. These cases generally discuss the importance of adhering to the written employment contract and the precedence of an institution’s internal regulations when they conflict with general labor law (as seen in cases involving QatarEnergy and others). However, there is no specific case addressing stock or equity compensation promised to a foreign employee, where the employee was terminated without receiving it and the court analyzed the nature of that contractual obligation and whether it could be enforced or denied.Legal considerations that Qatari courts typically examine in financial entitlements or compensation disputes upon termination include:The employer may be obligated to honor what is clearly and explicitly stated in the written contract.An institution’s internal policies may take precedence over general labor law if a specific regulation exists that governs the disputed issue.If the contract refers to incentives or financial compensation beyond regular salary, the right to them must be clearly documented in writing and mutually agreed upon.The issue of "fulfillment" — whether the payment or compensation was actually made — is evaluated before ruling on the matter.In administrative-type disputes, a clear provision or special agreement must exist to justify compensation for damage or to grant a financial benefit outside of regular wages.Conclusion:There is no publicly available Qatari court case concerning a written equity or ownership share compensation promised to a foreign employee that remained unfulfilled after termination, along with a court’s reasoning on whether to enforce or deny such a claim. If such a dispute arises, it is likely to be resolved based on:the clarity of the written provision,the presence of a recognized internal company policy,and the available evidence of entitlement and fulfillment.If you have the name of the company or further details about a specific case, I may be able to conduct a more targeted search. In any event, it is advisable to consult a Qatari lawyer to evaluate your contract and the enforceability of stock-related entitlements within Qatar’s labor market.

Based on the context available to me, there is no indication in the displayed excerpts of any case currently before the courts of the United Arab Emirates involving a company misclassifying expenses as capital expenditures. All the mentioned cases pertain to other issues such as the misuse of cheques, actions involving company documents, or disputes over asset ownership or execution. There is no reference to the reclassification of expenses in accounting records or a dispute over whether they are capital or revenue expenditures.If you are looking for specific information about this type of case, I recommend consulting the commercial court records or reviewing judgments issued by the courts of first instance or appeal in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, or other Emirates, or seeking advice from a lawyer specialized in accounting and commercial disputes in the UAE.

A notable dispute in the UAE's oil and gas sector involving misuse of government assets concerned a case where a company imported petroleum products, including a significant quantity purchased from the Abu Dhabi Port Authority at public auction. The company then chartered a tanker to store and blend these products for export. However, the tanker—anchored off the coast near Khor Fakkan—was seized by the coast guard and transferred to Abu Dhabi. The reason given was a suspicion that the oil cargo originated from Iraq, with no formal legal procedures initiated. It was later alleged that a rival company, acting in collusion with certain individuals, had tampered with laboratory reports to state falsely that the oil matched the specifications of Iraqi petroleum, constituting a misuse of official procedures and manipulation of assets acquired in a government-run auction process[1].

Looking at the available documentation [1], [2], [3], we find that all cases related to reckless driving addressed aspects related to failure to comply with traffic regulations, excessive speed, and failure to take necessary precautions while driving. These documents do not mention any instances in which the accused claimed that poor performance or reckless driving was the result of long working hours or resulting fatigue. If a detailed case is required that highlights this defense of long working hours, it appears that there is no current material in the available context that mentions it. To ensure information about a case of this nature, it is advisable to consult more up-to-date legal sources or consult a legal specialist in the UAE.

In one notable case, a bank employee—identified as Faisal Mohamed Khair Al-Najjar—collaborated with an external partner (Abdullah Said Khalifa Al-Muhiri) to unlawfully transfer funds from a client’s account. The client was a Chinese private company (Albaine Enterprise Trading Limited, based in Hong Kong). The fraudulent scheme involved the use of a commercial license in the name of “البين انتربرايز” issued from Ajman, which allowed the duo to misappropriate a total amount of approximately 36,572,317.88 AED. The matter was pursued both in criminal and civil proceedings, with the client initiating a commercial lawsuit (case no. 3769/2015) against the bank, and a criminal case subsequently filed that led to the conviction of the involved parties [1][2].

One notable dispute involves an employee who, under an indefinite employment contract entered into in 2011, was promised a stock-based compensation package. The package was to include a grant of 250,000 shares issued by one of the group's companies based in the Cayman Islands. However, as the dispute shows, although the employee received 100,000 shares, the remaining shares were not delivered. Moreover, the employee’s salary was suspended in December 2019 without any legal justification, and his other labour remuneration claims were not settled accordingly. This dispute eventually led to the matter being filed as case number 3225 of 2021 (partial labour) before the Dubai Primary Court [1].

Below is an overview of three decisions – as they can be drawn from the available summaries – in which one or more of the accused parties (or some of the defendants) ended up not bearing liability (or bearing only a reduced share) in connection with allegations arising from non‐adherence to proper site safety measures. It is important to note that in many cases involving breaches of safety protocols the courts ultimately ruled in favor of the injured party; however, within multi‐party disputes the courts at times dismissed or lessened the claim against one or more defendants. For example:In one case the project’s left side tilted so that when a structural element fell the injured party suffered severe, irreversible damage. Although the operator responsible for site security was found criminally liable, the civil suit was brought against several parties. The court eventually rejected the claim “in its entirety” against the fourth defendant—whose role was to provide insurance coverage—and confirmed that, on the basis of contractual and evidentiary analysis, that party was not held liable for compensating the injured party. In effect, the insurance company (defendant) secured a favorable ruling on its side of the dispute even though other participants were ordered to pay damages [10].In another decision heard in a multi‑defendant suit, a worker suffered significant injuries after falling from a platform that did not meet prescribed safety standards. Even though the on‑site supervisor and the construction company were found to be negligent, the court’s detailed review of the evidence led to a splitting of responsibility. On appeal, certain defendants (namely, those whose direct involvement in setting up or supervising the platform was less clear) saw their portion of the liability substantially reduced – effectively “sheltering” them from the full burden of the claim. This outcome meant that one or more defendants were, at least in part, awarded about non‑liability on account of evidentiary findings regarding the precise nature of the safety breach and their contractual roles [4, 9].In a further matter brought before the higher courts (with part of the proceedings appearing before a Federal Supreme Court review), the factual record showed that insufficient safety measures had contributed to an accident on a construction site. While the lower court had imposed a full compensation order against all alleged responsible parties, subsequent appellate review examined factors such as contributory negligence and the scope of the site operators’ responsibility in providing safe working conditions. As a result, the appellate determination modified the initial award so that for one of the defendants the claim was either dismissed or its monetary burden significantly curtailed. In that decision the defendant’s argument that, under the applicable contractual and regulatory framework, they should not be held solely responsible was given weight by the reviewing judges [5].It is worth stressing that these summaries illustrate scenarios where—even in an environment of stringent safety requirements—the multi‑party nature of the dispute and detailed fact‐finding sometimes resulted in a “winning” outcome (or a reduction in exposure) for one or more defendants. Because the available snapshots come from complex proceedings with overlapping criminal and civil issues, anyone relying on these case aspects should review the full decisions and confirm their applicability with up‑to‑date legal advice from a licensed attorney.