- Dubai/DIFC—applicable law/fiduciary relationship/Quistclose trust (Dhir v Flutter Entertainment)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Private Client analysis: The claimant was a Dubai based businessman who advanced money to another businessman in Dubai which he thought would be invested in the local property market. The recipient of the loaned money was a gambling addict who subsequently lost significant sums of money though his excessive gambling. The claimant sought to recover the monies from the defendant gambling business Flutter Entertainment claiming the money in the company represented the money he was entitled to recover from the person he had lent the money to originally. Written by Matthew Duncan, partner, Druces LLP and DIFC-registered Will draftsman.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial