This was an appeal from the Judgment of SCT Judge Natasha Bakirci dated 29 August 2016. The Judgment arose out of a case filed in the DIFC Courts' Small Claims Tribunal (“SCT”) by the Respondent, Mr Preecha Narula, an investment customer of the Appellant company. The Respondent sought damages against the Appellant company for the incorrect purchase of an investment product. Before the SCT Judge was the question of whether the Respondent was owed damages or reimbursement for the failure by the Appellant to provide the correct reverse convertible investment product (the “Product”). The SCT Judge found in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant filed its appeal notice against the Judgment on 18 September 2016. The grounds of appeal were as follows:

[1] The findings of the judgment where the result of a misapplication of the DIFC Contract Law as the relevant facts did not suggest that there was any implication of invalidity for mistake because the contract was fully constituted. The facts instead raised a question of whether there was a breach on the executed contract which calls for a different legal test and analysis.