Obie v Osric [2026] DIFC CFI 095 (13 January 2026)

Obie v Osric [2026] DIFC CFI 095 (13 January 2026)

There was no basis for a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation against the Defendant, as the issue was neither pleaded nor put to the Defendant, and no evidence of dishonesty or recklessness was found. However, the Judge's findings of misrepresentation and negligent provision of legal services justified rescission and repayment under DIFC law, as the Claimant suffered loss by paying for services represented to be provided by a qualified lawyer when they were not. The appeal was dismissed except to clarify that no fraud finding was justified.

Citation
[2026] DIFC CFI 095
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Obie; Defendant/appellant: Osric
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
13 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal Judgment (sct 313 2025) / Court of First Instance Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except to clarify no basis for finding of fraudulent misrepresentation; original relief upheld.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Negligence, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission of Contract, Legal Services, Professional Negligence
Contract Law Tort Law Misrepresentation Negligence Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission of Contract Legal Services Professional Negligence

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Obie

Claimant/respondent

Osric

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Small Claims Tribunal Judgment (sct 313 2025) / Court of First Instance Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Judge was entitled to make a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation against the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the relief granted (rescission and repayment) was justified absent a finding of fraud
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant was entitled to recover outstanding fees under the counterclaim

Ratio Decidendi

There was no basis for a finding of fraudulent misrepresentation against the Defendant, as the issue was neither pleaded nor put to the Defendant, and no evidence of dishonesty or recklessness was found. However, the Judge's findings of misrepresentation and negligent provision of legal services justified rescission and repayment under DIFC law, as the Claimant suffered loss by paying for services represented to be provided by a qualified lawyer when they were not. The appeal was dismissed except to clarify that no fraud finding was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except to clarify no basis for finding of fraudulent misrepresentation; original relief upheld.

Orders

  • No basis for finding of fraudulent misrepresentation against Defendant.
  • Appeal otherwise dismissed; original orders (rescission, repayment, dismissal of counterclaim) stand.