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

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

The claimant's name should be amended to reflect the contracting party stated within the Franchise Agreement, as the error was procedural and can be corrected by the court's initiative.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] DIFC SCT 235
Parties
Claimant: Mikhat; Defendant: Metin
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal / Order With Reasons
Outcome
Claimant's name amended
Legal Topics
Franchise Agreement, Correction of Party Name
Contract Law Franchise Agreement Correction of Party Name

Source-derived case record

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 With Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's name should be amended to reflect the contracting party in the Franchise Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's name should be amended to reflect the contracting party stated within the Franchise Agreement, as the error was procedural and can be corrected by the court's initiative.

Court Disposition

Claimant's name amended

Orders

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