Olga v Orsola [2025] DIFC SCT 387 (21 October 2025)
Permission to appeal was refused because the Defendant failed to provide credible evidence of forgery, illegality, or fabrication, and the Primary Judge's findings were supported by documentary evidence and applicable law.
- Citation
- [2025] DIFC SCT 387
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Olga; Defendant/appellant: Orsola
- Jurisdiction
- United Arab Emirates
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application
- Outcome
- Permission to Appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Loan Agreement, Enforceability, Forgery, Illegality, Jurisdiction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Olga
Claimant/respondent
Orsola
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission to appeal should be granted
- 2 Whether the loan agreement was valid and enforceable
- 3 Whether the Defendant's signature was forged
Ratio Decidendi
Permission to appeal was refused because the Defendant failed to provide credible evidence of forgery, illegality, or fabrication, and the Primary Judge's findings were supported by documentary evidence and applicable law.
Court Disposition
Permission to Appeal refused
Orders
- No order as to costs
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