Millie (2) Molly v Mihard [2023] DIFC CFI 062 (23 February 2023)

Millie (2) Molly v Mihard [2023] DIFC CFI 062 (23 February 2023)

Claims relating to transactions and transfers prior to 1 July 2015 are time-barred under Article 38 of the Court Law; Mihard is not liable for alleged wrongs prior to July 2012 as those acts were by a different legal entity; Article 9(1) of the Law of Obligations does not cure limitation for regulatory breaches as fraud is not an essential element; amendments to pleadings are allowed only for claims not time-barred and not for new claims outside limitation; costs are awarded to the Defendant for defending abandoned claims.

Citation
[2023] DIFC CFI 062
Parties
Claimant: Millie; Claimant: Molly; Defendant: Mihard
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
23 February 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Financial Regulatory Dispute / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Amendment) at Court of First Instance
Outcome
First Strike Out Application dismissed; Second Strike Out Application granted in part; Amendment Application granted in part.
Legal Topics
Limitation of Actions, Strike Out Applications, Amendment of Pleadings, Regulatory Breach, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction, Costs Orders
Financial Regulation Contract Law Civil Procedure Limitation of Actions Strike Out Applications Amendment of Pleadings Regulatory Breach Negligence +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Millie

Claimant

Molly

Claimant

Mihard

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Financial Regulatory Dispute / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Amendment) at Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claims prior to 1 July 2015 are time-barred under Article 38 of the Court Law
  2. 2 Whether Mihard is the correct defendant for alleged wrongs prior to July 2012
  3. 3 Whether Article 9(1) of the Law of Obligations can cure limitation for regulatory breaches

Ratio Decidendi

Claims relating to transactions and transfers prior to 1 July 2015 are time-barred under Article 38 of the Court Law; Mihard is not liable for alleged wrongs prior to July 2012 as those acts were by a different legal entity; Article 9(1) of the Law of Obligations does not cure limitation for regulatory breaches as fraud is not an essential element; amendments to pleadings are allowed only for claims not time-barred and not for new claims outside limitation; costs are awarded to the Defendant for defending abandoned claims.

Court Disposition

First Strike Out Application dismissed; Second Strike Out Application granted in part; Amendment Application granted in part.

Orders

  • First Strike Out Application dismissed.
  • No notice of discontinuance required; amendment procedure appropriate.