Dhir v Flutter Entertainment Plc (Rev 2)

Dhir v Flutter Entertainment Plc (Rev 2)

The October 2015 Agreement is governed by onshore Dubai law, contains no trust or fiduciary obligations, and imposes no restrictions on Mr Parente’s use of funds. Mr Dhir ceased to have any proprietary interest in the money once advanced. Tracing is not possible due to lack of evidence and proprietary claim. Claims for knowing receipt and unjust enrichment fail as essential elements are not established.

Parties
Claimant: Amarjeet Singh Dhir; Defendant: Flutter Entertainment PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant
Legal Topics
Choice of Law, Fiduciary Duties, Tracing, Unjust Enrichment, Knowing Receipt
Contract Law Trusts and Fiduciary Law Conflict of Laws Choice of Law Fiduciary Duties Tracing Unjust Enrichment Knowing Receipt

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amarjeet Singh Dhir

Claimant

Flutter Entertainment PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the October 2015 Agreement governed by onshore Dubai law or DIFC law?
  2. 2 What are the terms of the October 2015 Agreement?
  3. 3 Did Mr Parente owe trust or fiduciary obligations to Mr Dhir?

Ratio Decidendi

The October 2015 Agreement is governed by onshore Dubai law, contains no trust or fiduciary obligations, and imposes no restrictions on Mr Parente’s use of funds. Mr Dhir ceased to have any proprietary interest in the money once advanced. Tracing is not possible due to lack of evidence and proprietary claim. Claims for knowing receipt and unjust enrichment fail as essential elements are not established.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant