We use cookies to collect anonymous data to help us improve your site browsing experience.

Click 'Accept all cookies' to agree to all cookies that collect anonymous data. To only allow the cookies that make the site work, click 'Use essential cookies only.' Visit 'Set cookie preferences' to control specific cookies.

Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Search

What can we help you with today?

Skip to main

Case: CA3/25

DAC Beachcroft Claims (Scotland) LLP v Mohammed Al Dahbashi Advocates

About this case

Case name

DAC Beachcroft Claims (Scotland) LLP v Mohammed Al Dahbashi Advocates

Case reference number

CA3/25

Date of hearing

Thursday 29 October 2026

Time of hearing

10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion

Division

First division

Judges

  • Lord President
  • Lady Wise
  • Lord Clark

Agents and Counsel

For the Reclaimer (DAC Beachcroft Claims (Scotland) LLP )

  • Agents: DAC Beachcroft Claims (Scotland) LLP
  • Counsel: Jonathan Brown

For the Respondent (Mohammed Al Dahbashi Advocates LLC)

  • Agents: Johnson Legal
  • Counsel: Adam Black

Case description

The pursuer and reclaimer is a firm of Scottish solicitors. The defender and respondent is a limited liability company incorporated in the United Arab Emirates, trading as “ADG Legal”.

The reclaimer seeks payment from the defender of invoices rendered for legal services provided in relation to the conduct of litigations in the Court of Session. The respondent does not dispute that the services were provided but does dispute liability to meet the reclaimer’s fees. They contend that when entering into terms of engagement with the reclaimer, they did so as agents for a disclosed principal (viz., Leander CB Consultants Limited) and incurred no liability of their own.

A preliminary proof (trial) was held to determine whether the respondent or Leander was liable to pay the pursuer’s fees and outlays. No oral evidence was led and the parties agreed that the court could determine the question based on documentary evidence and submissions. The Lord Ordinary (Lord Lake) held that the respondent had entered into terms of engagement with the reclaimer in the capacity of agent for a disclosed principal, and that the resulting contract only imposed liability on Leander to make payment of the reclaimer’s fees and outlays. The respondent had not incurred personal liability under the contract. On 19 December 2025, therefore, the Lord Ordinary held that the court had no jurisdiction in respect of the respondent and dismissed the claim.

The reclaimer now seeks review of the Lord Ordinary’s interlocutor of 19 December 2025.  The case will be heard by the First Division on 29 October 2026 at 10:30am.