Dhir v Flutter Entertainment Plc (Rev 2) [2021] EWHC 1510 (QB) (04 June 2021)

Dhir v Flutter Entertainment Plc (Rev 2) [2021] EWHC 1510 (QB) (04 June 2021)

The court found that the agreements between Mr Dhir and Mr Parente were simple loan agreements governed by onshore Dubai law, with no collateral or fiduciary terms beyond those written. Mr Parente was not subject to trust or fiduciary obligations in respect of the money advanced. The money advanced by Mr Dhir could not be traced into the hands of the defendant, and the defendant did not have the requisite knowledge for knowing receipt. There was no basis for a claim in unjust enrichment against the defendant. Accordingly, the claim failed.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1510
Parties
Claimant: Amarjeet Singh Dhir; Defendant: Flutter Entertainment PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 June 2021
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Knowing Receipt, Unjust Enrichment, Tracing, Fiduciary Duties, Conflict of Laws, Gambling Losses, Agency
Civil Law Trusts and Equity Restitution Private International Law Knowing Receipt Unjust Enrichment Tracing Fiduciary Duties +3 more

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amarjeet Singh Dhir

Claimant

Flutter Entertainment PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Claim (queen's Bench Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between Mr Dhir and Mr Parente was governed by onshore Dubai law or DIFC law
  2. 2 What were the terms of the agreement between Mr Dhir and Mr Parente
  3. 3 Whether Mr Parente was subject to trust or fiduciary obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the agreements between Mr Dhir and Mr Parente were simple loan agreements governed by onshore Dubai law, with no collateral or fiduciary terms beyond those written. Mr Parente was not subject to trust or fiduciary obligations in respect of the money advanced. The money advanced by Mr Dhir could not be traced into the hands of the defendant, and the defendant did not have the requisite knowledge for knowing receipt. There was no basis for a claim in unjust enrichment against the defendant. Accordingly, the claim failed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in full
  • No order for recovery against the defendant