By: Lawyer Aisha Sultan Khalid Al-Suwaidi
When Law No. (21) of 2021 establishing the Investment and Trade Court was enacted, it was only natural that legal practitioners and business owners welcomed it with considerable optimism. The establishment of a specialized court for commercial and investment disputes represents an important step for any country seeking to attract capital, improve the business environment, and provide greater confidence and stability for market participants.
The concept was, at its core, clear and reassuring: a specialized judiciary that understands the nature of commercial activity, more efficient and flexible procedures, and disputes resolved within a timeframe consistent with the pace of investment. While prolonged litigation may be burdensome for individuals, for companies it can mean frozen capital, stalled projects, and lost opportunities that cannot be recovered.
Indeed, the establishment of the Court has contributed to the development of commercial dispute resolution, whether through judicial specialization, the use of electronic means, or the organization of the stages of filing and preparing cases. These are commendable achievements, reflecting the State’s commitment to modernizing its judicial system and making it more responsive to the needs of the economy. However, practical experience has revealed an issue that warrants reconsideration: the high court fees and security deposits that must be paid before commencing a claim or filing an appeal.
Pursuant to Cabinet Resolution No. (6) of 2022, the filing fee for a first-instance case before a single-judge panel is QAR 3,000, while the required security deposit is QAR 5,000, meaning that a claimant must provide QAR 8,000 at the outset of the proceedings. In cases heard by a three-judge panel, the combined filing fee and security deposit reach QAR 15,000. As for appeals, the filing fee amounts to QAR 7,000, in addition to a security deposit of QAR 15,000. The amounts increase further for certain other applications and challenges, such as appeals before the Court of Cassation and petitions for reconsideration, reaching approximately QAR 45,000.
These figures may not appear significant in disputes worth millions of Qatari Riyals. However, not all commercial disputes involve such values. Many concern relatively small invoices, overdue payments, service fees, or work performed by a start-up company that has yet to receive its dues.
From practical legal experience, we regularly encounter cases where the principal claim amounts to QAR 5,000 or QAR 7,000, and sometimes even less. In such situations, the business owner is confronted with a very practical question: should they pay court fees and a security deposit that equal or exceed the value of the claim, and then also bear legal fees, translation costs, and expert fees if required?
More often than not, the answer is no.
Moreover, in many instances, the claimant or appellant is simply an ordinary individual who, through circumstances, finds it necessary to resort to the commercial courts because of a commercial transaction to which they were a party. In such cases, refraining from exercising their constitutional right of access to justice becomes their only practical option.
The reason is not the weakness of their legal position, but rather the fact that resorting to the courts is no longer economically viable. Consequently, they may abandon their claim altogether, accept only part of their entitlement, or continue pursuing an amicable settlement without success. At that point, the issue ceases to be merely one of court fees and instead becomes a genuine barrier separating the rightful claimant from the courts.
It is true that a security deposit differs from a court fee and may be refunded in accordance with the applicable rules governing it. Nevertheless, it remains an amount that must be provided upfront. This lies at the heart of the problem for small and medium-sized enterprises. A large company can generally afford to tie up such amounts without affecting its operations, whereas a small business may need the same funds to pay an employee’s salary, settle rent, purchase inventory, or meet an outstanding installment. While the amount claimed may seem modest from an outside perspective, within a small business it may represent the difference between continuity and financial distress.
The consequences extend beyond the claimant company itself. If it becomes widely recognized in the market that small claims are difficult to recover through litigation because of the high cost involved, some debtors may be encouraged to delay payment, knowing that creditors will think twice before commencing legal proceedings. Over time, confidence in commercial dealings may decline, demands for additional guarantees may increase, and business owners may become more inclined to require advance payment or raise prices to offset the risks of non-payment. In this way, the cost of litigation itself becomes part of the cost of conducting business.
This is not a matter that should be underestimated in a country that is continuously working to strengthen its position as an investment destination. Investors do not consider only the ease of establishing a company or the speed of obtaining a license. They also ask whether they will be able to enforce their contracts and recover their rights if a dispute arises. The easier it is to access the courts, the greater the confidence in the market and in the legal framework that governs it.
Small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, require greater protection in this regard, as they represent a broad base of economic activity, create employment opportunities, and encourage new entrepreneurial initiatives. They are also the businesses most vulnerable to the effects of delayed payments and the accumulation of relatively small debts.
Certainly, the objective is not to abolish court fees or to open the doors of litigation without appropriate safeguards. Court fees serve a legitimate purpose, and it is important to discourage frivolous and vexatious claims. However, this objective can be achieved while maintaining proportionality between the value of the claim and the amount required to pursue it.
It is possible to introduce graduated court fees and security deposits based on the value of the claim, establish simplified procedures for small commercial claims, and provide specific facilities for small and medium-sized enterprises under clear and objective criteria. Consideration could also be given to deferring part of the court fees or granting exemptions where genuine financial hardship is established, such as where the party initiating the proceedings is a natural person or a small or medium-sized enterprise. The company’s paid-up capital could likewise serve as one of the criteria for assessment.
In conclusion, the establishment of the Investment and Trade Court was an important legislative and judicial achievement. Reconsidering the cost of access to that Court does not diminish its success; rather, it strengthens its role. We therefore hope that the competent authorities will study the practical impact of the current court fees and security deposits, and will take into account the observations of judges, lawyers, and members of the business community.
The future of investment in Qatar depends not only on the speed with which disputes are resolved, but also on the ability of every rightful claimant to access the courts, whether they manage a major corporation or a newly established small business. When the cost of litigation exceeds the value of the claim itself, the courthouse door may remain legally open, yet practically closed.
