Alrakban v Webridge Properties LLC [2026] ADGMCFI 0014 (19 May 2026)

Alrakban v Webridge Properties LLC [2026] ADGMCFI 0014 (19 May 2026)

The defendant, by its conduct and documentation, represented to the claimant that VAT was included in the purchase price. The SPA did not require separate VAT payment, and the defendant's subsequent insistence on VAT constituted a misrepresentation that induced the claimant to contract. The defendant's counterclaim fails as it repudiated the contract by refusing the claimant's tendered payment and seeking deregistration. Only the VAT misrepresentation is actionable; other alleged misrepresentations are not established.

Citation
[2026] ADGMCFI 0014
Parties
Claimant: Ali Othman A Alrakban; Defendant: Webridge Properties LLC
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
19 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Commercial and Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, VAT Liability, Off Plan Property Sale, Contractual Interpretation, Remedies for Breach, Penalty Clauses
Contract Law Tort Law Real Estate Law Commercial Law Misrepresentation VAT Liability Off Plan Property Sale Contractual Interpretation +2 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ali Othman A Alrakban

Claimant

Webridge Properties LLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial and Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant made a misrepresentation regarding VAT liability under the SPA
  2. 2 Whether the SPA required the claimant to pay VAT in addition to the stated purchase price
  3. 3 Whether the defendant made actionable misrepresentations regarding the use and condition of the Terrace Area and Unit

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant, by its conduct and documentation, represented to the claimant that VAT was included in the purchase price. The SPA did not require separate VAT payment, and the defendant's subsequent insistence on VAT constituted a misrepresentation that induced the claimant to contract. The defendant's counterclaim fails as it repudiated the contract by refusing the claimant's tendered payment and seeking deregistration. Only the VAT misrepresentation is actionable; other alleged misrepresentations are not established.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimant AED 2,976,455 as damages in lieu of rescission, with interest at 5% per annum from judgment until payment.
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.