Currency Matters Middle East v Michael Page International Limited [2018] DIFC CFI 039 (06 September 2018)

Currency Matters Middle East v Michael Page International Limited [2018] DIFC CFI 039 (06 September 2018)

The Respondent reasonably believed Mr Singh had authority to contract on behalf of the Appellant due to the Appellant's conduct, including granting access to company emails and stamp, and the Board Resolution. The SCT Judge did not err in law in finding a binding contract existed based on apparent authority, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2018] DIFC CFI 039
Parties
Appellant (defendant): Currency Matters Middle East; Respondent (claimant): Michael Page International (UAE) Limited
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
06 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal Judgment / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Apparent Authority, Binding Contract, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Authority of Agent, Estoppel
Contract Law Agency Law Apparent Authority Binding Contract Fraudulent Misrepresentation Authority of Agent Estoppel

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Currency Matters Middle East

Appellant (defendant)

Michael Page International (UAE) Limited

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal Judgment / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Singh had authority to bind the Appellant in contract with the Respondent
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent reasonably believed Mr Singh had authority (apparent authority)
  3. 3 Whether the SCT Judge erred in law in finding a binding contract existed

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent reasonably believed Mr Singh had authority to contract on behalf of the Appellant due to the Appellant's conduct, including granting access to company emails and stamp, and the Board Resolution. The SCT Judge did not err in law in finding a binding contract existed based on apparent authority, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appellant shall pay the Respondent the costs associated with this Application, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed by the parties within 30 days of the issuance of this Order.