Mikhat v Metin [2023] DIFC CT 235 (24 August 2023)

Mikhat v Metin [2023] DIFC CT 235 (24 August 2023)

The court found that the claimant's name was incorrectly stated due to a common filing error and ordered the amendment to reflect the true contracting party, Mublai, as per the Franchise Agreement.

Citation
[2023] DIFC CT 235
Parties
Claimant: Mikhat; Defendant: Metin
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Order on Amendment of Party Name
Outcome
Claimant's name amended to Mublai
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Misnaming of Parties, Franchise Agreement
Civil Procedure Amendment of Pleadings Misnaming of Parties Franchise Agreement

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mikhat

Claimant

Metin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal / Order on Amendment of Party Name

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's name should be amended to reflect the correct contracting party

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the claimant's name was incorrectly stated due to a common filing error and ordered the amendment to reflect the true contracting party, Mublai, as per the Franchise Agreement.

Court Disposition

Claimant's name amended to Mublai

Orders

  • The claimant’s name in this claim shall be amended to 'Mubla'.
  • The case title shall be amended to 'Mubla and Metin'.