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 trust or fiduciary obligations. The only terms were those in the written documents, which contained entire agreement clauses. Mr Dhir could not trace his money into the defendant's hands, and the defendant did not have the requisite knowledge for knowing receipt. There was no unjust enrichment as the defendant was not enriched at Mr Dhir's expense. The claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 1510 (QB)
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, Governing Law, Agency, Fraud
Civil Law Trusts Law Restitution Conflict of Laws 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
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 What law governs the agreement between Mr Dhir and Mr Parente?
  2. 2 What were the terms of the agreement between Mr Dhir and Mr Parente?
  3. 3 Did Mr Parente owe fiduciary or trust obligations to Mr Dhir?

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 trust or fiduciary obligations. The only terms were those in the written documents, which contained entire agreement clauses. Mr Dhir could not trace his money into the defendant's hands, and the defendant did not have the requisite knowledge for knowing receipt. There was no unjust enrichment as the defendant was not enriched at Mr Dhir's expense. The claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed in full
  • No order for payment by the defendant to the claimant