Claim No: CFI 064/2025

THE DUBAI INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE COURTS

IN THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BETWEEN

SANJA BOSKOVIC

Claimant

and

MIRABAUD (MIDDLE EAST) LTD

Defendant

AMENDED ORDER WITH REASONS OF H.E. JUSTICE THOMAS BATHURST

UPON the Case Management Order of H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst dated 20 November 2025 (the “CMO”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-064-2025/2 dated 13 February 2026 seeking document production (the “Production Application”)

AND UPON the Claimant’s Application No. CFI-064-2025/3 dated 27 February 2026 seeking permission to adduce expert evidence

AND UPON review of the parties’ submissions on the Court file

AND UPON the Progress Monitoring Date listed before H.E. Justice Thomas Bathurst on 14 May 2026

AND PURSUANT TO the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”)

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the parties, in consultation with the Registry, shall produce draft orders to give effect to the Schedule of Reasons by no later than 4pm on Friday, 15 May 2026.

Issued by:
Hayley Norton
Assistant Registrar
Date of issue: 13 May 2026
Date of re-issue: 20 May 2026
At: 12pm

INTRODUCTION

1. Pursuant to orders made by me on 25 November 2025 the Claimant has applied for an order for specific disclosure/production to be made pursuant to RDC Part 28 and that the Defendant produce the documents set out in Requests 1-26 of Schedule 1 of the Production Application to the extent not already produced as well as further and better production where the Claimant’s requests to produce were (to use the Claimant’s expression) “accepted by the Defendant”.

2. The Claimant has also applied for permission pursuant to RDC Part 23 and RDC 31.3 and 31.14 to adduce expert evidence from an expert in the field of banking and compliance.

THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

3. In its Particulars of Claim dated 26 June 2025, the Claimant asserts that she suffered losses totalling USD 741,537.70 arising from what she claims to be unauthorised transactions on certain accounts with the Defendant established with funds supplied by her. The Claimant alleges for present purposes that the Defendant acted negligently in allowing the Claimant’s funds to be unlawfully dissipated due to its failure to implement proper oversight and internal controls over its employees and systems. The Claimant contends that the Defendant complied with these requests to transfer funds that were not authorised by the Claimant and breached its duty of care by failing to have in place appropriate system controls, tests and balances in order to prevent unauthorised transactions. She contends there were a number of red flags which ought to have alerted the Defendant that the Claimant did not authorise the transactions including the fact that large transactions took place on a USD account approximately 20 months after it was opened, that the transactions were in favour of companies that had not been previously identified by the Claimant, that large transactions took place outside the UAE and the only transactions which took place on the account were those which were unauthorised. She also relied somewhat obscurely on the fact that the DFSA found that the Defendant had breached various anti-money laundering regulations in allowing certain transactions to take place and that the Claimant’s Relationship Manager, Mr Peter Georgiou, had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct in permitting unauthorised transactions to made from clients’ accounts in amounts exceeding USD 160 million.

4. In its Defence dated 30 September 2025, the Defendant raised a number of matters but so far as the allegations of negligence were concerned, it stated that they were wholly unparticularised and embarrassing and denied the allegations.

THE PRODUCTION APPLICATION

5. The Production Application is made pursuant to RDC Part 28. Relevantly, RDC 28.2 empowers the Court to exclude from production any documentation for lack of sufficient relevance and materiality, on the grounds of privilege and because it would be an unreasonable burden to produce the required material for reasons of procedural economy, proportionality and fairness. The Claimant contends none of these exclusions apply whilst the Defendant, in particular, maintains that the documents sought are neither relevant nor material and that the Claimant is seeking to embark on a fishing expedition to ascertain whether there are documents which may in fact assist her in particularising her Claim.

6. I agree with the Defendant that the particulars of negligence are inadequate in that no attempt has been made to particularise what controls should have been in place, the failure to put them in place and that the loss flowed as a result. In particular, the Defendant is entitled to know at the very least the actual deficiencies which are contended to exist.

7. However, that is not to say that the Claimant is not entitled to know what, if any, controls were actually put in place. Whether it is permitted to subsequently adduce evidence to show that those controls were inadequate is something which need not be determined at the present time.

8. With that background, it is appropriate to deal with the particular categories of documents sought by the Claimant.

Request 1

9. I would allow this request. In so far as it relates to the CHF, GBP and JPY accounts these accounts were opened at the same time as the USD and EUR accounts and it seems to me the documents relating to the opening of these accounts may be relevant and should be discovered. I note that the Defendant states that in relation to the USD and EUR accounts it has produced all documents in its possession after a reasonable and proportionate search and I have no reason to go behind that statement.

Request 2

10. It seems to me that any further production over and above that which has been given constitutes a fishing expedition. This request is rejected.

Requests 3, 4, 5 and 6

11. Having regard to the particulars given by the Claimant, these documents do not seem to me to be relevant to the pleaded case. I would reject these requests.

Request 7

12. I would allow this request. The Defendant has denied the Claimant’s allegation that she did not authorise the transactions. It seems to me that having regard to this denial material which would demonstrate the Defendant’s knowledge of the beneficiaries is relevant and should be disclosed.

Requests 8 and 9

13. I do not think these requests have any relevance to the Claimant’s pleaded case. They should be rejected.

Request 10

14. I would allow this request. It specifically relates to the accounts of the Claimant and is relevant to the bank’s knowledge of whether the transactions were unauthorised as well as indicating the steps taken in relation to the account. Although there is undoubtedly room for debate, I think this falls within the parameters of the Claimant’s pleaded case.

Requests 11 and 12

15. I do not think these requests are relevant to the Claimant’s case as pleaded. I reject these requests.

Request 13

16. The complaint in relation to this request appears to be that only a summary of the material has been produced. Unless it can be shown that it places an unreasonable burden on the Defendant, the actual record should be produced.

Requests 14 and 15

17. These requests seem to have been accepted by the Defendant at least in so far as they relate to material directly relating to the Claimant. There is nothing to show that the statement by the Defendant that it has conducted a reasonable and proportionate search for such documents is incorrect. Further, to the extent that what is sought goes beyond documents directly relating to the Claimant, they are not material having regard to the Claimant’s pleaded case. These requests are rejected.

Request 16

18. Although the Defendant objected to the production of this material, it produced as part of its response to the Claimant’s Production Application a document which is described as a document retention policy. This policy was stated to be effective from 31 October 2025. It appears from the Claimant’s submissions in reply that the earlier material is sought in order to verify the validity of the Defendant’s claims that the passage of time and low prospect of recovery makes it impossible to produce certain material (see paragraph 31 of the submissions in reply). That is not a proper basis for an order for discovery. In the circumstances, the request should be refused.

Request 17

19. There is a live issue in the case as to whether the transactions complained of were authorised. This request seems to go to that issue. It should be allowed in the terms set out in the Claimant’s schedule.

Requests 18 and 19

20. These requests do not relate to any pleaded issue. They constitute a fishing expedition in the sense the documents are sought in the hope that they may produce something favourable to the Claimant. This is not a proper basis for discovery. I reject these requests.

Requests 20, 21 and 23

21. These requests fall within the same category as Requests 18 and 19. They are rejected.

Request 22

22. To the extent these documents are limited to discussions with the Claimant or her representative, the request is granted. The documents are relevant to the issue of authority to enter into the transactions.

Requests 24, 25 and 26

23. The Defendant contends it has produced all documents in its possession relating to these issues after a reasonable and proportionate search. There is nothing in the evidence to cast doubt on the accuracy of that statement.

The privilege log

24. The privilege log produced by the Defendant seems to me to be in the appropriate form.

THE APPLICATION TO CALL A BANKING EXPERT

25. In his witness statement of 27 February 2026 the solicitor for the Claimant sets out the reasons why the evidence of a banking expert is necessary and proportionate. At the moment I have considerable doubt that the evidence could be said to be reasonably required to resolve the proceedings (see RDC 31.12). Nevertheless, should the Claimant wish to do so she may provide a draft statement from her expert setting out the evidence proposed to be given. I will then decide whether such evidence should be allowed.

COSTS

26. As each party has had some success in the proceedings, the costs shall be costs in the cause.

ORDERS

27. I direct the parties in consultation with the Registry to produce draft orders to give effect to my reasons.