Sheikh Meshal Jarah Al-Sabah v UBS AG [2012] DIFC CFI 005 (27 August 2013)

Sheikh Meshal Jarah Al-Sabah v UBS AG [2012] DIFC CFI 005 (27 August 2013)

The Claimant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that any oral agreement was entered into on 9 July 2009, let alone on the terms alleged. The evidence was inconsistent, improbable, and unsupported by contemporaneous documents or objective facts. Even if such an agreement had been made, there was no evidence that the Claimant's actions led to the withdrawal of Vivendi or the securing of the UBS mandate, which was already a foregone conclusion.

Citation
[2012] DIFC CFI 005
Parties
Claimant: Sheikh Meshal Jarah Al-Sabah; Defendant: UBS AG
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
27 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Oral Agreements, Remuneration for Services, Investment Banking Mandates, Credibility of Witnesses
Contract Law Banking Law Oral Agreements Remuneration for Services Investment Banking Mandates Credibility of Witnesses

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheikh Meshal Jarah Al-Sabah

Claimant

UBS AG

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement was made between the Claimant and the Defendant on 9 July 2009 for payment of a fee for services relating to the Zain Africa sale
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant performed any contractual obligations entitling him to remuneration

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that any oral agreement was entered into on 9 July 2009, let alone on the terms alleged. The evidence was inconsistent, improbable, and unsupported by contemporaneous documents or objective facts. Even if such an agreement had been made, there was no evidence that the Claimant's actions led to the withdrawal of Vivendi or the securing of the UBS mandate, which was already a foregone conclusion.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim is dismissed in its entirety.