Latest law

An Asian man has been fined Dhs5,000 for using his personal Instagram account to incite a minor girl abroad to engage in acts contrary to public morals. The court also ordered the confiscation of his mobile phone, and the judgment was later affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a prospective employee who claimed Dh95,000 in damages after accusing a company of making a “non-serious job offer.” The court found that the employer had not violated any contractual obligations, as the offer was subject to government approval -- an essential legal requirement under UAE labour and immigration regulations.

According to case records, the plaintiff said he had undergone nearly a year of interviews before receiving an official job offer. He claimed the company asked him to resign from his existing job and prepare to join their organisation. A formal employment contract was issued, offering a monthly salary of Dh36,500, and the employer initiated the process of issuing an entry work visa.

The dispute began when the visa application was rejected twice. The employee alleged that the company submitted incorrect academic information -- listing him as a diploma holder instead of his actual qualification -- resulting in the rejection. He argued that this constituted a breach of contract and sought compensation for financial and emotional damages.

The company countered that the offer was clearly conditional upon the approval of UAE authorities responsible for issuing work permits and residency visas. Since the work permit was not granted, and the rejection came from the government rather than through any fault of the company, it maintained that it could not lawfully proceed with the employment.

Legal Framework in the UAE

Under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, an employment relationship is only valid once a work permit is approved by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE). Key points include:

• Conditional job offers: Many employment contracts in the UAE include clauses stating that the agreement becomes effective only after government approval of the work permit and residency visa.
• Work permit as a prerequisite: Article 6 of the law stipulates that no individual may be employed without a valid work permit issued by MoHRE.
• Employer obligations: Employers must submit accurate employee information, but the final approval of permits lies solely with government authorities.
• Visa rejection: If the authorities deny a work permit -- whether due to documentation issues, quota limitations, or eligibility concerns -- the employer cannot legally complete the hiring, and the employment contract is considered void.

The court emphasised that because the authorities rejected the work permit application, the employer could not be held liable for compensation. It stated that the failure to obtain approval was “beyond the company’s control,” and therefore, no breach occurred under UAE labour law.

The Abu Dhabi Civil Family and Administrative Court has ordered a client to pay a law firm Dh125,000 in outstanding legal fees after he failed to honour a signed agreement for representation in a commercial claim and a criminal complaint that was later closed.

The court noted that the defendant neither attended hearings nor disputed the contract or the agreed fees, leading the judge to conclude that the amount remained payable.

Case documents show that the law firm sought the agreed fees, 5 per cent legal interest from the due date until full settlement, and reimbursement of litigation costs. The firm explained that it had been appointed to act for the client in a financial claim before Abu Dhabi commercial courts and to file a criminal complaint with Dubai Public Prosecution. Despite completing the required work, the client allegedly failed to pay without valid justification.

In its judgment, the court reiterated that a lawyer is entitled to remuneration as set out in a written fee agreement. Although courts may reduce fees if requested by a client and deemed excessive, such discretion does not apply when the agreement is clear, proportionate and signed before the legal work is completed. In the absence of a valid written contract, courts may instead determine fees based on effort and the benefit gained by the client.

The court found that a valid agreement existed and that the lawsuit merely sought to enforce its terms. There were no requests to amend the fee amount, no arguments over effort or value, and no evidence of contractual breach by the law firm. The firm had already completed the criminal complaint procedures in Dubai before the case was closed, while the client neither appeared nor contested the agreement at any stage.

The Dubai Civil Court of First Instance has rejected a Dh1 million damages claim filed by a commercial establishment against three defendants, including two former employees accused of unfair competition, leaking confidential information and diverting clients.

The company sought material and moral compensation, plus 5 per cent legal interest, alleging that the defendants’ actions had harmed its business performance and reputation.

Court documents show that the first defendant worked as an accountant and sales manager from 2017 until late 2023, while the third defendant was employed as an administrative officer until January 2024. The firm claimed it detected a drop in sales after learning that the first defendant had launched a competing business -- allegedly supported by the administrative employee -- and that both had channelled clients to the new venture while still employed.

The plaintiff relied on a criminal ruling from Sharjah’s Court of First Instance, which had fined the first defendant Dh20,000 for disclosing company secrets and misusing corporate data. The conviction was upheld on appeal.

However, after examining the evidence, the Dubai court appointed an expert who found no direct relationship between the plaintiff and the new company linked to the former employee. The expert also confirmed that the employees were not bound by any contractual clause preventing them from joining or establishing a competing business after leaving their roles.

The report further revealed that the company’s sales had not decreased following the launch of the competing firm; instead, revenues rose in 2022 and 2023 when compared with 2021 -- the year the new entity was founded.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to produce audited financial statements or documents proving monetary losses or profit reduction. The expert noted that the competing company’s transactions with two of the plaintiff’s clients took place only after the defendants’ employment had ended.

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has rejected an appeal in a trademark infringement case involving a globally recognised online-only brand, in a ruling that strengthens the United Arab Emirates’ position as a jurisdiction that enforces intellectual property rights with increasing rigour.

The dispute dates back to 2024, when the brand discovered that a local company in Abu Dhabi was using its registered trademarks extensively in a physical retail store. The marks appeared on the shopfront, inside the store, on products and in promotional materials, despite the global brand having no physical outlets and trading exclusively through an app and website. The company filed a lawsuit in the Abu Dhabi Commercial Court, arguing that the unauthorised use risked misleading consumers into believing there was an affiliation or licensing agreement.

The Commercial Court agreed, ruling in favour of the brand. It issued a wide-ranging order requiring the retailer to stop using the trademark immediately, remove its trade name from commercial registries across the UAE and withdraw all infringing goods and marketing material. The court found that the use of the marks created a real likelihood of consumer confusion and could dilute the brand’s identity, particularly given its global recognition and exclusive digital presence.

The retailer appealed the decision before the Abu Dhabi Court of Appeal, but the judgment was upheld in December 2024. The Appeal Court confirmed the lower court’s findings and maintained that the unauthorised use amounted to unfair competition and trademark infringement. It reiterated that modern business models such as online-only platforms are entitled to the same level of legal protection as traditional retail operations.

A further cassation appeal was lodged in January 2025, bringing the case before the highest civil court in Abu Dhabi. However, the Court of Cassation ruled the appeal inadmissible because the appellant failed to pay a mandatory security deposit required under Article 179 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law. The Court noted that the appellant had paid the filing fee but had not settled the deposit despite receiving a formal notification, making the appeal procedurally defective.

Judges emphasised that compliance with procedural requirements is not optional and that failure to meet the prescribed deadlines automatically invalidates a cassation appeal. Lawyers say the ruling is a reminder that while the Cassation Court may examine errors of law or procedure, it cannot move forward when appellants do not meet basic formalities.

Although the Cassation Court did not address the substantive trademark issues, the decisions of the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal continue to carry legal weight. Collectively, they signal that the UAE judiciary is adopting a firm stance on protecting trademark owners in an evolving commercial environment. The courts recognised that brands operating entirely online can face heightened risks of misappropriation in physical markets, and that traditional evidence of “use” or “presence” is not a prerequisite for legal protection.

Legal analysts say the ruling is part of a broader trend in the UAE, where authorities have strengthened enforcement mechanisms and issued clearer frameworks for IP protection in recent years. The judgment also provides guidance for businesses operating digital-first models, confirming that courts will extend full protection to trademarks regardless of whether the brand has a physical footprint in the country.

For international companies, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of registering trademarks with the UAE Ministry of Economy to gain statutory protection. Lawyers advise brand owners to maintain active monitoring systems, particularly in markets where physical retail can create a perception of legitimacy for unauthorised operators. Thorough documentation of online operations, consumer reach and brand recognition has become increasingly relevant when proving infringement.

For local businesses, the decision highlights the risks of using marks that appear popular or widely recognised without verifying their registration status. It also illustrates the consequences of procedural lapses in litigation. Missing a payment deadline or failing to meet formal requirements can close the door to further appeal, even where parties believe they have strong grounds to challenge earlier judgments.

The case adds to the UAE’s growing body of jurisprudence in IP enforcement and will likely be cited in future disputes. With the country expanding its digital economy and attracting international investment, the ruling reinforces the message that courts are prepared to protect brand owners comprehensively -- including those whose operations are purely online.

The Bar Council of India (BCI) informed the Delhi High Court on Tuesday that its 2022 Rules permitting the entry and practice of foreign lawyers and law firms in India do not require prior approval from either the Chief Justice of India (CJI) or the Central government.

The submission was made before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while hearing petitions filed by Dentons Link Legal and CMS IndusLaw. The firms have challenged the Bar Council of India Rules for Registration and Regulation of Foreign Lawyers and Foreign Law Firms in India, 2022.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nigam, representing one of the petitioners, argued that the BCI had yet to demonstrate that it had obtained the mandatory approvals from the CJI or the Central government before issuing these Rules.

In response, counsel for the BCI said, “We don’t need the approval… Allow me to file a counter and I will justify.”

During the hearing, the Bench reiterated its concerns about the BCI Rules, particularly the provisions that enable severe action against law firms on the basis of only a preliminary inquiry. The Court remarked that the Rules are “a mess” and urged the Council to consider amendments.

“It’s a mess. Why don’t you [BCI] bring in an amendment? These rules apply across the country,” the Court observed, adding that the Council should focus on properly framing the regulations rather than offering repeated explanations.

The BCI responded that a consultation process is currently underway and that suggestions are being reviewed. The Bench, however, pressed the Council to refine the Rules, remarking, “You are the Bar Council after all.”

The Court granted the BCI two weeks to file its affidavit and adjourned the matter to January. Its earlier directive restraining the BCI from taking any final decision in proceedings against the law firms will remain in force. “Don’t take the final decision,” the Bench reiterated.

Both IndusLaw and Dentons Link Legal are contesting the validity of the Rules and the show cause notices issued to them in August regarding alleged unauthorised collaborations between Indian and foreign law firms in violation of BCI regulations.

The petitioners argue that the BCI lacks the power under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate the entry and practice of foreign lawyers and foreign law firms in India. According to IndusLaw, Section 49 of the Act does not authorise the BCI to frame such rules.

Dentons Link Legal has additionally invoked Sections 49(1)(c) and (e) of the Advocates Act, contending that any such regulations would require prior approval from the CJI or the Central government. Without these approvals, they argue, the Rules are ultra vires. The firm also pointed out that while the Rules deal extensively with foreign entities, they fail to define what constitutes an “Indian law firm.”

Previously, the High Court had also expressed reservations about the Rules, especially the provisions permitting drastic action based solely on preliminary inquiries.

Renewing car insurance in the UAE can often leave motorists wondering why premiums vary widely between insurers, even when the level of coverage appears similar. However, the country has a clearly defined regulatory framework governing what a motor vehicle insurance policy must include -- and how much insurers are permitted to charge.

A unified framework for all insurers
 

Motor insurance in the UAE is governed by the Unified Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy, issued under Insurance Authority Board Decision No. 25 of 2016, alongside Decision No. 30 of 2016, which regulates motor vehicle insurance tariffs. Together, these decisions standardise the terms, conditions, obligations, exclusions, and pricing rules that all insurers must follow.

Under this regime, every insurer offering motor policies in the UAE must comply with mandatory clauses relating to:

1. Obligations of the insurance company

These include compensating the insured for damage covered under the policy, repairing the vehicle, or replacing it when necessary.

1. Obligations of the insured

Policyholders must pay premiums on time and take reasonable precautions to protect the vehicle. They must also ensure proper ownership and updated documentation.

1. Exclusions

The unified policy clearly lists cases where claims will not be covered, such as:

• Damage caused by overloading the vehicle
• Losses arising from indirect causes
• Accidents involving a driver without a valid licence
• Accidents occurring outside the geographical limits specified in the policy

1. Recourse and termination clauses

Insurers are allowed to seek recourse against the insured in specific circumstances -- for example, when a claim arises from fraud or violation of policy terms. The law also governs how and when a policy may be terminated.

Optional coverage allowed under the law

Although the unified policy sets the minimum mandatory coverage, insurers and policyholders are free to agree on additional benefits, provided they fall within the regulatory framework.

Clause 5 of Chapter One of the Unified Motor Vehicle Insurance Policy states that insurers may offer extra coverage through riders in return for an additional premium. These optional add-ons may include:

• Cover for damage to the insured’s own property or belongings
• Cover for damage to items in the driver’s possession or custody
• Cover for risks occurring off-road

This provision explains why quotes for similar base coverage may still differ -- insurers can bundle optional benefits, enhance coverage limits, or apply varying risk assessments.

What UAE law says about premium limits
 

Despite variations in optional coverage, there is a legally mandated cap on how much insurers can charge for basic motor insurance.

Under Decision No. 30 of 2016 on Motor Vehicle Insurance Tariffs, insurers may charge:

• Up to five per cent of the vehicle’s value for saloon cars
• Up to seven per cent for four-wheel drives
   

These limits apply to the standard 13-month policy, which includes a one-month grace period for registration renewal.

Insurers must keep premiums within these ceilings. However, within that limit, pricing can fluctuate based on factors such as the driver’s history, vehicle age, previous claims, and any additional riders.
 

Bottom line: Why your premium may differ
 

While UAE law imposes strict rules on policy wording, exclusions, and maximum premiums, insurers retain some freedom to:

• Assess individual risk factors
• Offer varied add-ons
• Provide flexible coverage options
• Apply discounts or loadings within the permitted tariff range

This is why motorists may see different quotes for seemingly similar coverage. Understanding the legal framework can help car owners compare policies more effectively and ensure they are not charged beyond the regulated tariff.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) maintains two separate legal frameworks to govern employment relations, recognising that domestic work within private households requires a distinct approach from employment in the general private sector.

The Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 Regulating Labour Relations (“UAE Labour Law”) applies to most private-sector employers and employees. However, Article 3(2)(c) of the UAE Labour Law expressly excludes domestic workers from its scope. To ensure proper regulation of this category, the UAE introduced the Federal Decree-Law No. 9 of 2022 Concerning Domestic Workers (“Domestic Workers Law”), supported by Cabinet Resolution No. 106 of 2022 (“Implementing Law”).

Together, the Domestic Workers Law and the Implementing Law form a comprehensive framework tailored to the unique conditions of domestic work, balancing the privacy of household employment with the protection of workers’ rights.
 

1. Scope and Purpose
   
   Under Article 1 of the Domestic Workers Law, the term workplace refers to the permanent or temporary residence of the employer or their family, including farms or other similar private premises. This definition highlights the personal and non-commercial nature of domestic work, which distinguishes it from ordinary employment relationships covered under the UAE Labour Law.

Every domestic worker must be employed under the Unified Standard Employment Contract approved by the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (“MoHRE”) and as per Article 7 of the Domestic Workers Law. Furthermore, the employment or recruitment of individuals under 18 years of age is strictly prohibited under Article 4(3) of the Domestic Workers Law.

By separating these two legal frameworks, the UAE ensures that private-sector employment is governed by the UAE Labour Law, while domestic employment is exclusively regulated by the Domestic Workers Law and the Implementing Law.
 

1. Working Conditions and Welfare
   
   The Domestic Workers Law provides clear provisions to safeguard the welfare, dignity, and fair treatment of domestic workers.
    

Working and Rest Hours:
A domestic worker is entitled to a daily rest period of not less than 12 hours, including eight consecutive hours of uninterrupted rest under Article 9(2) of the Domestic Workers Law and Article 7 of the Implementing Law.

Weekly Rest Day:
Every domestic worker must receive one paid weekly rest day. If work is required on that day, an alternative rest day or compensation must be provided as per Article 8 of the Implementing Law.

Accommodation, Meals, and Clothing:
Employers must provide adequate accommodation, meals, and appropriate clothing if the worker is employed on a full-time basis as per Article 11 of the Domestic Workers Law.

Payment of Wages:
Wages must be paid in UAE dirhams within 10 days from the due date under Article 15(1) of the Domestic Workers Law, and any deduction from wages may not exceed one-quarter (¼) of the salary as per Article 16 of the Domestic Workers Law.

Sick Leave:
Domestic workers are entitled to 30 days of sick leave per year, consisting of 15 days with full pay followed by 15 days with half pay based on Article 10(6) of the Domestic Workers Law.

Annual Leave and Airfare:
If the worker spends their annual leave in their home country, the employer must provide a return air ticket once every two years under Article 10(4) of the Domestic Workers Law.

These provisions ensure humane working conditions and reflect the UAE’s commitment to protecting workers’ welfare within private households.
 

1. Dispute Resolution and Enforcement
   
   The Domestic Workers Law establishes a specialised dispute resolution mechanism through MoHRE, ensuring quick and fair settlement of disputes.

Under Article 23(3) of the Domestic Workers Law, MoHRE may issue a final decision on claims not exceeding AED 50,000. For larger claims, the matter may be referred to the competent court.

All employment-related claims must be filed within three months from the termination of the employment relationship under Article 26(2) of the Domestic Workers Law. This shorter period, compared to the two-year limitation under the UAE Labour Law, reflects the intent to resolve household employment matters swiftly.

To enforce compliance, the Implementing Law empowers MoHRE to impose administrative penalties. For example, if an employer fails to pay wages for more than two months or commits acts of assault or harassment, MoHRE may suspend the employer’s file as per Article 15 of the Implementing Law.

Furthermore, domestic worker recruitment agencies must maintain a bank guarantee of not less than AED 500,000 with the Ministry as a security measure under Article 3(1)(b) of the Implementing Law.
 

1. Categories of Domestic Workers

The Implementing Law lists nineteen (19) categories of domestic workers covered under the Domestic Workers Law. These include:
Servant, Sailor, Janitor, Herder, Parking Attendant, Camel Trainer, Falconer, Worker, Housekeeper, Cook, Babysitter, Farmer, Gardener, Private Trainer, Private Tutor, Home Caregiver, Personal Assistant, Private Agronomist, and Chauffeur.

This extensive list ensures comprehensive coverage and protection for all domestic occupations within the UAE.
 

1. Conclusion
   
   The UAE Labour Law and the Domestic Workers Law, together with the Implementing Law, represent two complementary systems designed to address the specific needs of different employment sectors.

While the UAE Labour Law governs standard private-sector relationships, the Domestic Workers Law provides a specialised legal regime for domestic employees, offering them rights and protections suited to the nature of household work.

Through this distinct legislative framework, the UAE reinforces its ongoing commitment to ensuring fairness, dignity, and legal clarity for both employers and domestic workers, maintaining a balanced relationship that upholds human values and regulatory accountability.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered a convicted scammer to repay Dh24,500 he unlawfully withdrew from a victim’s bank account, in a case that underscores the persistent threat of phone-based financial fraud.

According to the Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court, the defendant must return the stolen sum in full, compensate the victim for emotional distress, and pay annual interest on the amount.

Before the civil ruling, the defendant had already been found guilty in a criminal case and fined Dh20,000 for fraud and unlawful possession of funds. The latest judgment, issued on November 11, 2025, ensures the victim is reimbursed for the amount stolen.

Court documents show that the victim received a call from a man posing as a bank representative. Speaking convincingly, the caller claimed the victim’s bank card required “urgent verification” to avoid suspension. Misled into believing the caller was an authorised employee, the victim disclosed his card details and one-time password (OTP). Within hours, Dh24,500 had been siphoned from his account.

After realising he had been duped, the victim lodged a police complaint. Investigators traced the transactions to the defendant, who had used the stolen credentials to transfer the funds into his own account. He was prosecuted for fraud, electronic deception, and unlawful possession of money.

Although the criminal court convicted the accused and imposed a Dh20,000 fine, the victim was still left uncompensated. He then filed a civil lawsuit seeking the return of the Dh24,500, Dh25,000 in damages for emotional and financial harm, and 5 per cent interest.

In its reasoning, the civil court said the matter was straightforward because the criminal conviction had already confirmed the defendant’s guilt and established that the funds were taken illegally. It ordered the scammer to repay the full amount with 3 per cent annual interest for delayed payment.

The judge also acknowledged the emotional distress suffered by the victim, noting feelings of anxiety, stress, and humiliation. However, as no further material loss was proven, the court awarded Dh3,000 as moral compensation, deeming it fair and proportionate. The defendant was also directed to bear all court fees and legal costs.

Authorities in the UAE continue to urge residents not to share OTPs, PINs, or card details over the phone and to verify any suspicious communication directly with their banks. Financial institutions and regulators, including the UAE Central Bank, are intensifying awareness campaigns to combat phishing and online fraud.