United Arab Emirates: Bank Sarasin Judgment: Quantum Issues Including US-Style Multiple Damages

The high cost of mis-selling in the DIFC: the Bank Sarasin case (Part Two) and the first DIFC award of (US-style) multiple or punitive damages


On 7 October 2015, the DIFC Court of First Instance issued its judgment on quantum issues in the latest instalment of the Bank Sarasin case. The decision is important for a number of reasons, not least because:

  1. it is one of the largest successful mis-selling claims seen in the region with the DIFC Court determining quantum and ordering the combined payment of damages of US$59,611,899 (in addition to previous interim payments of circa US$11.5m) by Bank Sarasin-Alpen in the DIFC and its Swiss parent entity; and
  2. for the first time the DIFC Court awarded multiple (or punitive) damages based on the deliberate conduct of Sarasin-Alpen and confirmed that in applying DIFC Law it will follow the US approach to such damages, rather than the more conservative principles under English law. In effect, this doubled Sarasin-Alpen's liability for certain heads of compensation awarded.

In this article, we look at the broader impact of this judgment, the reasoning behind it and the likely consequences for DIFC financial institutions and their insurers.

A reminder of Bank Sarasin (Part One) – the Liability Judgment

The issues of the liability of the DIFC entity, Sarasin-Alpen, and its Swiss parent, Bank Sarasin, had been dealt with in the first judgment in August 2014 ("the Liability Judgment"), which held them to be jointly liable for regulatory breaches and breaches of duty.

Background to the case

  • Sarasin-Alpen and Bank Sarasin advised individuals from a wealthy Kuwaiti family (the "Claimants") on their investments.
  • The recommended investments were structured financial products, including real estate investment trusts, and totalled around US$200m ("the Investments").
  • The Claimants were also advised to take out loans to finance and leverage some of the Investments.
  • Following the onset of the global financial crisis, the value of the Investments dropped dramatically resulting in margin calls for extra capital to be provided to prop up the Investments.
  • When the Claimants were unable to meet those margin calls, Bank Sarasin liquidated the Investments causing huge losses for the Claimants.


The Liability Judgment made the following findings:

  • Sarasin-Alpen had wrongly categorised the Claimants as "Professional Clients" (i.e. experienced investors based on a test of available assets and financial sophistication); instead, they should have been categorised as "Retail Customers".
  • The Claimants' investment objectives were to obtain 100% capital protection so that they could be sure of being in a position to pay off the borrowing by means of which the Investments were funded. The Investments were not suitable investments for borrowed money.
  • This was: "a clear case of mis-selling unsuitable investments to an unsophisticated investor..."
  • Bank Sarasin had carried out financial services in or from the DIFC (as a result of its own activities as well as insufficient delineation from the activities of its subsidiary Sarasin-Alpen) and was therefore in breach of the general prohibition under the Regulatory Law.

The Liability Judgment is still subject to a pending appeal by both Defendants, but in the meantime the case came back before the Court of First Instance for a further hearing on quantum issues (the "Quantum Judgment"), which are discussed below.

Part Two - The Quantum Judgment

The proportion of the Claimants' losses that related to their losses on the sale of the Investments had already been quantified and awarded as part of the Liability Judgment. The Claimants sought to recover further losses, which arose from fees and interest charged to them by Bank Sarasin and the banks that had financed the Investments. The Defendants argued these losses had zero value and put forward a number of legal arguments to support that position:

  1. Scope of Duty and remoteness of loss - The Defendants sought to invoke a long line of authority under English Law (beginning with the well-known decision in SAAMCO) (1) to support the contention that the losses claimed fell outside the scope of the Defendants' duties or were too remote (i.e. not foreseeable). These arguments were dismissed, largely because Bank Sarasin knew the Claimants were taking out the financing for the Investments "for the specific purpose of making those purchases".
  2. Mitigating their losses/Chain of causation - The Court also rejected claims that the Claimants had failed to mitigate their losses, as alleged, by failing to repay the loans or meet the margin calls made by Bank Sarasin. The Court found there was no evidence the Claimants were in a position to do so. For similar reasons, the Court rejected claims that those failures (and taking out a further loan) could amount to a break in the chain of causation between the Defendants' breaches and losses suffered.
  3. Nil transaction basis - The DIFC also rejected the Defendants' arguments that quantum could be challenged by seeking to revisit the "nil transaction basis" of the Claimants' case for recoverable losses, namely that, rather than assuming the Claimants would not have invested at all, it was necessary to undertake a counter-factual analysis of what alternative investments they would have made (if properly advised) and measure the financial consequences of that. The Court found this point had already been decided in the Liability Judgment and noted it was actually part of the pending appeal so could not be revisited at the Quantum Judgment stage. Deputy Chief Justice Sir John Chadwick reiterated that "the only proper conclusion (given the Claimants' investment criteria and my finding that an investment which satisfied those criteria was not available) was that there was no question of the Claimants ever proposing to invest in some other product; they should have been advised that a product having the characteristics they required was not one which could be obtained".

Multiple Damages

Without doubt, the most significant part of the Quantum Judgment is the judge's findings on multiple (also known as exemplary or punitive) damages.

The Claimants sought an award of multiple damages under Article 40(2) DIFC Law of Damages and Remedies (DIFC Law No 7 of 2005) which grants the judge in the DIFC Court a discretion to...

"where warranted in the circumstances, award damages to an aggrieved party in an amount no greater than three (3) times the actual damages where it appears to the Court that the defendant's conduct producing actual damages was deliberate and particularly egregious or offensive".

The scope of Article 40(2)

The Court found that, contrary to the Defendants' submissions, Article 40(2) applies not only to damages claims for breaches of the DIFC Laws of Contract and Obligations, but also to claims for breaches of the Regulatory Law, as was relevant in this case.

Deliberate, particularly egregious or offensive conduct

The DIFC Court noted the following findings that triggered the scope of Article 40(2) multiple damages:

The Court found that, contrary to the Defendants' submissions, Article 40(2) applies not only to damages claims for breaches of the DIFC Laws of Contract and Obligations, but also to claims for breaches of the Regulatory Law, as was relevant in this case.

  1. "....a finding that Sarasin-Alpen acted in deliberate breach of the Financial Services Prohibition in treating (and dealing with) the Claimants, (and each of them) as "Clients" rather than as "Retail Customers".
  2. At least one employee of Sarasin-Alpen was "motivated....by a personal interest in the fees that would be generated by the exercise....".
  3. Sarasin-Alpen had "deliberately falsified documents .....to make them appear as if they had been completed by the Claimants in their own hands...".
  4. The Court had marked its disapproval of the above conduct by awarding costs on an indemnity basis following the Liability Judgment.

English or US approach?

The Quantum Judgment is replete with detailed references to and citations from, English case law on various principles of damages that apply in the case. However, notably, the Court expressly rejected Sarasin-Alpen's suggestion that it should look to the (more conservative) English law principles when deciding whether to award multiple damages under Article 40(2). Justice Chadwick's findings on this point are clear:

"Nor do I think that Sarasin-Alpen obtains assistance from the principles which would guide a court in England or Wales when deciding whether or not to award exemplary damages. Article 40(2) is not derived from the Law of England and Wales: rather, it reflects an intention to depart from that law in favour of the law in the United States of America. The law making authority in this jurisdiction has given the DIFC Courts power to award multiple damages in appropriate cases; and this Court should not decline to exercise that power – when circumstances require – on the ground that a Court of England and Wales would not make such an order."

Justice Chadwick went on to find that the damages claimed against Sarasin-Alpen should be doubled as a result of its conduct.


This is the first case in the DIFC Courts and, indeed, the entire region in which multiple or punitive damages have been awarded. The Court was unequivocal in its interpretation of the relevant provision of DIFC Law which permits the award of such relief.

Although both the Liability and Quantum Judgments are now being appealed by the Defendants, the Quantum Judgment will remain helpful in demonstrating the approach of the DIFC Court when determining the circumstances in which multiple damages will be awarded.

The claim was originally backed by professional litigation funders and the prospect of multiple damages awards may lead to an increased willingness by third party funders to fund such claims and result in an increase in negligent advice/mis-selling claims in the DIFC.

Given the DIFC Court's clear findings about the nature of the Sarasin-Alpen's deliberate conduct and breaches, it would be surprising if the DFSA did not also see fit to take action against those entities and individuals involved.

Commentary for Insurers

There has historically been a low frequency of claims in the Middle East region for mis-selling and negligence against financial institutions and professionals. However, in recent years, we have seen an increase in claims for negligent advice/ negligent mis-selling of investments, as well as an increase in negligence claims against professionals generally.

It has been mandatory for certain categories of DIFC licensed institutions to have professional liability cover since 2012. Insurers of financial institutions in the DIFC may, however, wish to revisit and check policy wordings to ensure that multiple (or punitive) damages awards are expressly excluded from cover.

The DIFC reinsurance community will also be watching the development of US-style multiple damages awards carefully, noting that this same principle forms the foundation of the "bad faith" or extra-contractual damages regime that overshadows the decisions and practice of most US insurers. It could, in due course, be extended to the conduct of DIFC insurers in their handling of claims.


(1) South Australia Asset Management v York Montague [1996] UKHL 10

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions