ADGM Courts Decisively Declines Bank’s Claim in Credit Card Dispute

In a ruling that underscores the limits of fine-print updates in banking contracts, the ADGM Courts has dismissed a credit card recovery claim filed by an Abu Dhabi bank against a UAE resident, holding that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The dispute centred on alleged unpaid credit card dues. The card had originally been issued in 2004, years before the establishment of the ADGM Courts.

When the disagreement arose, the bank approached the ADGM Small Claims Division, arguing that the customer had accepted ADGM’s jurisdiction through updated terms and conditions referenced in his monthly credit card statements.

The cardholder contested the claim, maintaining that he had never signed any agreement transferring jurisdiction to ADGM. He argued that the card was issued and used in Dubai and that continued use of the card did not amount to consent to a change in the forum for dispute resolution.

After reviewing the submissions, the court found no evidence that the customer had explicitly agreed in writing to move disputes to ADGM.

The court observed that routine references to updated terms in electronic monthly statements were not enough to establish consent to a significant contractual change such as court jurisdiction.

It held that such references appeared to be routine notifications rather than clear and specific amendments requiring customer approval.

Reaffirming the principles governing ADGM’s special jurisdiction, the court said it can hear disputes only where both parties have expressly agreed in writing. Jurisdiction, it noted, cannot be created through implication, silence or unilateral amendments.

On that basis, the court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the bank’s recovery case and dismissed the claim. The bank was also ordered to bear the customer’s legal costs.

The judgment further referred to consumer protection principles of the Central Bank of the UAE, which require banks to clearly notify customers in advance of any significant changes to contractual terms.


The ruling highlights the judiciary’s approach to everyday banking disputes, particularly where lenders rely on standard-form updates to modify key contractual rights.

The decision reinforces that:

• Banks cannot introduce major contractual changes through routine updates
• Continued card usage does not automatically amount to legal consent
• Changes affecting dispute jurisdiction must be clearly communicated and expressly agreed
  
  

The case serves as a reminder that even in digital banking relationships, clarity, transparency and explicit consent remain essential when altering customers’ legal rights.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.