Olave v Oleesa [2026] DIFC SCT 542 (23 March 2026)
Permission to appeal was refused because the grounds raised did not disclose any question of law, miscarriage of justice, or procedural unfairness; the alleged errors were either factual or not substantiated, and the contractual risk allocation placed responsibility for charge-backs on the Defendant.
- Citation
- [2026] DIFC SCT 542
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Olave; Defendant/appellant: Oleesa
- Jurisdiction
- United Arab Emirates
- Judgment Date
- 23 March 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Small Claims Tribunal Appeal Application / Permission to Appeal Application Refused
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Charge Backs, Payment Services, Contractual Liability, Appeal Procedure, Costs Assessment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Olave
Claimant/respondent
Oleesa
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal Application / Permission to Appeal Application Refused
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted from SCT judgment
- 2 Whether the Claimant was liable for fraudulent charge-backs
- 3 Whether procedural or substantive errors justified appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal was refused because the grounds raised did not disclose any question of law, miscarriage of justice, or procedural unfairness; the alleged errors were either factual or not substantiated, and the contractual risk allocation placed responsibility for charge-backs on the Defendant.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Defendant to pay Claimant’s costs of responding to the permission to appeal application, to be assessed as per directions in the order.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment