A property manager cannot manage what it is no longer authorised to touch. In this 2025 Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal judgment — in which our team acted for the successful respondent — the Court confirmed that where an owner revokes the power of attorney that made performance possible, the management agreement may be rescinded and the manager released from any liability flowing from that revocation. The appeal was dismissed in full.
1. The dispute
Our client, a real estate management company, managed a plot on behalf of its owner under a property-management transfer agreement registered with Abu Dhabi Municipality. The arrangement rested on a power of attorney granted by the owner in 2010. The owner later revoked that power of attorney and notified tenants that dealings with the manager were barred.
With its authority withdrawn, our client sued to rescind the management agreement, hand the management back to the owner, and be released from any liability arising out of the revocation. The Court of First Instance granted exactly that in June 2025. The owner’s son — personally and as his father’s guardian — appealed.
2. Revoked authority makes performance impossible — so rescission follows
The heart of the decision is a point of simple commercial logic. The management agreement could only be performed through the agency the owner had granted. Once the owner cancelled that agency, continued performance became impossible. As the Court put it, it would be illogical to require a manager to carry on under a contract while stripping it of the very authority the contract depends on — still less to hold it answerable for consequences flowing from the owner’s own revocation.
Rescission, and release from liability arising out of the cancellation, therefore followed as a matter of necessity rather than discretion.
3. A change of trade name does not defeat standing
The appellant argued that our client had no relationship with the company named in the underlying documents, and so lacked standing. The Court rejected this on the official record: the commercial licence and register showed one and the same legal entity that had simply changed its trade name. Identity of the legal person, not continuity of branding, is what standing turns on.
4. A mis-stated date in the pleadings was a correctable slip
The appellant also complained that the claim had sought rescission of a 2010 instrument rather than the 2022 management agreement actually in issue. The Court found this was a material error corrected on the record at a hearing before the first instance court, which had proceeded on the correct agreement. A clerical slip, cured on the record and causing no prejudice, does not defeat an otherwise good claim.
5. Expert evidence — the court is not obliged to keep appointing experts
The appellate court had already appointed an accounting expert and received the report. Asked to appoint yet another expert, it declined: assessing the sufficiency of grounds for rescission is a question of fact within the trial court’s power of appraisal, and where the papers are sufficient to form a view, a further reference is unnecessary.
6. From judgment to execution
The judgment did not stop at declaratory relief. It has since moved into execution, with the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court’s execution judge writing to the Abu Dhabi Real Estate Centre in April 2026 to give effect to the rescission on the property register — the step that converts a paper win into an actual transfer of management responsibility.
Practical takeaways
- If your authority to act is withdrawn, move promptly for rescission and an express release — do not simply stop performing.
- Plead the release as a distinct head of relief; it is what closes off later claims arising from the revocation.
- Keep licence and trade-name history to hand; a rebrand invites a standing challenge that official records will defeat.
- Correct pleading slips on the record at the earliest hearing — an uncured error is a gift on appeal.
- Plan the execution step: a rescission only bites once the property register reflects it.
Sources & citations
- Judgment: Commercial Appeal 989/2025 (on appeal from Commercial First Instance 279/2025) (Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of Appeal — Third Commercial Appeal Circuit). Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of Appeal judgment of 15 October 2025, upheld and now in execution (Abu Dhabi Real Estate Centre notified April 2026). Not published in a public database; a certified copy is on file with the firm. See the ADGM Courts judgments database.
Rules & practice directions cited
- UAE Civil Procedure Law — Arts. 133(1)-(2) and 170 (costs and advocacy fees)
- UAE Civil Transactions Law — Art. 151 (a party who contracts is bound by the contract)
- Abu Dhabi Judicial Department — court of record
This case note is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on an ADGM debt-recovery, enforcement or set-aside matter, please contact us. Last updated: 15 October 2025.