Obasi v Oreana [2025] DIFC SCT 169 (24 December 2025)

Obasi v Oreana [2025] DIFC SCT 169 (24 December 2025)

The Defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, miscarriage of justice, or procedural unfairness. The judge at first instance correctly applied the contractual terms regarding introduction and commission. The grounds of appeal were either factual, irrelevant, or already addressed by the trial judge. Permission to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2025] DIFC SCT 169
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Obasi; Defendant/appellant: Oreana
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
24 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute (brokerage Commission) / Appeal—permission to Appeal Application
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Brokerage Agreements, Commission Entitlement, Appeal Procedure, Interpretation of Contract Clauses
Contract Law Commercial Law Brokerage Agreements Commission Entitlement Appeal Procedure Interpretation of Contract Clauses

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Obasi

Claimant/respondent

Oreana

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute (brokerage Commission) / Appeal—permission to Appeal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was entitled to commission under the brokerage agreement
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant had been introduced to the property by the Claimant as per the agreement
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's grounds for appeal met the statutory threshold for permission to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law, miscarriage of justice, or procedural unfairness. The judge at first instance correctly applied the contractual terms regarding introduction and commission. The grounds of appeal were either factual, irrelevant, or already addressed by the trial judge. Permission to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The Permission to Appeal Application is refused.
  • The request for an adjournment of the Hearing is refused.