Abu Dhabi: The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases dismissed a lawsuit filed by a young man seeking Dh20,000 in compensation from a woman for material and moral damages he said he suffered after she accused him of taking movable property and hacking into her electronic accounts.

The complaint led to his arrest and investigation before the Public Prosecution issued an order temporarily closing the criminal case due to insufficient evidence.

The court stressed that insufficient evidence alone does not establish that a complaint was false or that the right to report an alleged offence had been abused.

In his lawsuit, the man sought Dh20,000 in compensation for the material and moral damages he said resulted from the complaint, his arrest and the subsequent proceedings. He also asked the court to order the defendant to pay fees, expenses and legal costs.

He said the woman had accused him of taking movable property and hacking into information technology devices and accounts belonging to her. The complaint resulted in his arrest before he was released on bail, with his place of residence as collateral.

His phone was examined by an electronic laboratory, but the examination and investigation did not produce evidence supporting the allegations, according to his claim. The Public Prosecution subsequently issued an order that there was no basis for pursuing the criminal case temporarily because of insufficient evidence.

The plaintiff argued that the complaint and subsequent proceedings caused him material damage, including disruption to his business and interests, loss of communication with clients, and expenses associated with following up on the case.

He also claimed to have suffered moral and psychological harm, including anxiety and distress, as well as damage to his reputation, social standing and professional position.

The defendant asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of merit and evidence. She argued that filing a complaint and referring a matter to the competent authorities was a legitimate right, and that the Public Prosecution's decision to temporarily close the criminal case because of insufficient evidence did not, in itself, establish that her complaint was false or that she had abused her right.

In its ruling, the court explained that, under the Civil Transactions Law, a person who exercises a right legitimately is not liable for any harm that may result to others.

It said abuse occurs when a right is used for a purpose outside its legitimate scope, including malicious use intended to harm others.

The court also noted that tort liability requires three elements: fault, harm and a causal relationship between the two. The burden of proving fault rests with the person alleging it.

The court found that the documents did not contain evidence establishing that the woman's complaint was false or that she had deliberately sought to harm the plaintiff. Nor was it established that her recourse to the authorities was characterised by bad faith or gross error, or that she had abused her right to report by deliberately making allegations she knew to be false.

It added that investigation and arrest procedures, and any resulting harm, were not sufficient on their own to establish civil liability. The plaintiff also had to prove that the defendant was at fault and that there was a causal link between that fault and the alleged damage.

The court concluded that the element of fault necessary to establish civil liability had not been proved. It therefore dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the plaintiff to pay the expenses.