DIFC 156/2024
Nader v Niles
This case involved a purchased investment policy where money had been lost and the financial services company lacked relevant financial services authorisation. Issues included whether the DIFC court had jurisdiction. The contract had been discussed and signed in the DIFC but it was argued this was for convenience as the customer worked there and neither party was a DIFC entity.
Background
The Claimant was Nader, an individual who purchased an investment policy through the Defendant.
The Defendant was Niles a company located in Dubai, UAE.
The Defendant introduced the Claimant to Nellie a third-party insurance company. On 14 July 2016, the Claimant purchased an insurance policy with Nellie. The Claimant invested $31,500 in the policy between 19 July 2016 to 19 March 2018. The Claimant subsequently found that the policy was not appropriate for him, which led him to surrender the Insurance Policy and lose the entire invested amount.
The Claimant also discovered that the Defendant was not authorised to sell the policy at the time of the purchase, nor was it licensed to sell products in the DIFC.