Top Stories

A disagreement over a rent increase can become more complicated when a landlord refuses to accept payment. The tenant may be willing to pay the existing rent but unable to reach an agreement over the amount demanded for renewal.

Dubai’s Rental Disputes Centre (RDC) provides an Offer and Deposit service that creates a formal route for offering rent in these circumstances. The procedure allows an applicant to seek a judge’s order to offer rent or property keys to the landlord without deciding the parties’ wider tenancy rights.

However, using the service does not automatically resolve the disagreement. Tenants must distinguish between formally offering a payment and obtaining a ruling on whether a proposed rent increase or renewal condition is lawful.

When Offer and Deposit Can Help

The procedure may be used when a landlord declines to receive rent, including during a disagreement over renewing the tenancy. It can also apply to the return of property keys when a tenant is surrendering the premises and the landlord refuses to accept them. Rather than leaving the payment or handover unresolved, the applicant can ask the RDC to deal with the offer through its prescribed process.

For landlords, this provides an official channel through which the rent or keys can be offered while their position on any outstanding tenancy dispute remains preserved. The process does not require either party’s wider contractual claims to be decided at that stage.

Preparing and Submitting an Application

Applications can be submitted through the RDC website or a Real Estate Services Trustee Centre. Online applicants must register or sign in, select the service, enter the required information and upload their supporting records. The applicable fees are paid after electronic verification, and the judge’s decision becomes available through the website.

The published document requirements include a written Offer and Deposit motion, the applicant’s Emirates ID, the latest signed tenancy contract and a proposed new agreement carrying the same terms and conditions. Copies of the relevant cheques and any correspondence between the parties should also be included. Where the applicant is a company, the latest trade licence and the Emirates ID of the manager named on that licence are required. Documents must be submitted in Arabic or accompanied by a legal Arabic translation.

Tenants should also preserve evidence of their attempts to pay. Emails, messages and written notices can help establish when the rent was offered and how the landlord responded. Keeping these records provides a clearer account of the disagreement than relying only on conversations that were not documented.

Fees Are Separate From the Rent

The published application charges are Dh50 for Offer and Deposit, Dh10 as a Knowledge Fee and Dh10 as an Innovation Fee, bringing the basic total to Dh70. Filing through a Real Estate Services Trustee Centre attracts an additional Dh130 service fee, plus VAT on that service fee.

These charges cover the application process. They are not the rent itself, and paying them does not mean the tenant has completed the required rental payment. The rent must be dealt with separately in accordance with the RDC’s procedure and the judge’s order.

What Happens After the Judge Reviews the Request?

Approval is not automatic. A judge considers the application, and the applicant must check the decision and comply with any directions concerning the deposit of rent or the handover of keys. Submitting the request is therefore only one stage of the process, rather than confirmation that every necessary step has been completed.

The RDC’s guidance states that the landlord is notified once the Centre receives the rental payment. Applicants should provide accurate contact information and confirm that the required notification has taken place. Private emails or WhatsApp messages may help document the dispute, but tenants should not assume that these replace the Centre’s formal notification requirements.

How the Deposited Rent Is Treated

Rent deposited through the prescribed procedure is held in the RDC’s treasury for the landlord. It remains a rental payment, rather than an application charge or a replacement for the tenancy security deposit.

The RDC’s published guidance states that, where its required procedure is followed, the tenant is regarded as having paid from the date the judge accepts the request. Tenants should retain both the judicial order and evidence that the deposit was completed. Filing an application without fulfilling the payment requirements should not be treated as equivalent to paying rent.

The Wider Dispute May Still Need a Decision

An accepted Offer and Deposit application does not, by itself, establish that a rent increase is invalid or secure renewal on the tenant’s preferred terms. Where the disagreement remains unresolved, either party may need to pursue RDC conciliation or the appropriate rental claim to address the underlying issue.

Tenants must also continue meeting rental obligations as they fall due. Article 31 of Dubai’s Law No. 26 of 2007 expressly provides that an eviction claim does not exempt a tenant from paying rent during the proceedings and until the resulting decision is issued and enforced. A pending dispute should therefore not be treated as permission to stop paying.

A cancelled subscription followed by another card debit raises questions about its legality. In the UAE, the answer depends on when the cancellation became effective and whether any valid payment obligation remained, rather than simply when the cancellation request was submitted.

Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, promulgating the Civil Transactions Law, took effect on June 1, 2026. It provides the general framework for contractual obligations and termination. Agreements concluded before that date may require assessment under the previous law, subject to applicable exceptions.

Consumers should follow the cancellation procedure agreed with the provider. Notice periods, minimum commitments and renewal conditions can affect when a subscription ends and which payments remain due. However, contractual terms must comply with applicable consumer protection rules; being written into an agreement does not automatically make every condition enforceable.

Article 237 provides for restoring contracting parties to their position before the contract following rescission or termination, with compensation where restoration is impossible. In a subscription dispute, this supports seeking repayment where money has been collected without a continuing contractual basis. It does not automatically entitle consumers to recover every payment made for services properly provided.

The law does not establish a universal period allowing providers to keep charging after cancellation. A later debit could settle an outstanding amount for an earlier service period or an enforceable cancellation fee. Consumers should therefore distinguish an unauthorised renewal from a legitimate final bill. An earlier agreement to automatic renewal does not, by itself, justify further renewals after that arrangement has been validly cancelled.

Anyone disputing a charge should contact the provider in writing, identify the effective cancellation date and request an explanation and refund. Cancellation confirmations, emails, account screenshots, invoices and card statements can help establish what happened. The request should specify the disputed transactions and ask the provider to confirm that future recurring billing has stopped.

If unresolved, a debit or credit card holder can raise a transaction dispute with the issuing bank under its procedures and deadlines. Acting promptly preserves the opportunity for review, although submitting a dispute does not guarantee reimbursement. The outcome depends on the cancellation evidence, contractual obligations and applicable payment rules.

A federal judge in California has sided with Apple Inc. in part, ordering OpenAI Inc. to speed up the production of documents tied to claims that it misappropriated trade secrets to support its upcoming consumer hardware products.

Judge Edward J. Davila said on Tuesday that there is a real danger that key forensic evidence on the devices of engineers hired away from Apple could be lost. He pointed to an exchange between former Apple employees Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng, in which they discussed wiping their Apple-owned electronics.

Early discovery is needed to establish how far any misappropriation went, Davila wrote for the US District Court for the Northern District of California. He noted that the secrets at issue could become “so deeply entangled with OpenAI’s hardware products or other research and development efforts that the harm cannot be undone.”

Granting Apple’s motion for expedited discovery in part, the court directed OpenAI to produce forensic images of devices, summaries of certain interviews with Apple employees, Liu and Peng’s conversations on the LINE messaging platform, and records describing the former Apple employees’ roles at OpenAI. Liu, Peng and former Apple hardware chief Tang Yew Tan must also sit for early depositions.

The ruling arrives a day before a hearing on OpenAI’s motion to dismiss and Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction, which would bar OpenAI and the former employees from using the alleged trade secrets.

The dispute began in July, when Apple sued OpenAI, Liu and Tan, alleging a coordinated effort to obtain information about its unreleased products. OpenAI maintains the suit has no merit and is a pretext for Apple’s struggles to compete for talent.

Davila rejected Apple’s request for early discovery into OpenAI’s research and development on metal finishes, power management and battery functionality, finding those materials can be sought on the ordinary schedule. He also deferred ruling on requests using the term “Apple Originated Information,” which he called “amorphous as currently defined” and warned could impose an “extremely burdensome, and perhaps untenable task” on OpenAI.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Liu, N.D. Cal., No. 5:26-cv-07078, 10/13/26.

The founder of an international business typically spends years or decades building the enterprise, accessing different markets and nurturing a management team capable of succeeding them in the role of chief executive. The structures designed to govern the transfer of power and ownership, however, often fail to be fully thought through until a succession crisis is at hand.

For a multinational enterprise, the succession planning is more involved than mere considerations of who gets a bigger slice of the founder’s equity. It often encompasses a number of interrelated but distinctly different issues, including the location of the family’s assets, the nationalities of the founder’s dependents, the directorships controlled by them and the loan agreements secured by the enterprise.

This is because a family member’s ownership of a business may be located in one jurisdiction, its operating entities controlled from another, the founder’s liabilities domiciled in a third and the nationality of the potential heir located in a fourth. In addition, the family’s ownership structure will need to take into account the voting rights, management responsibilities, wealth and dispute resolution mechanisms that the founder wishes to grant or deny to different lineages of descendants.

While there is clearly overlap between these matters, ownership and management are not the same matter. A founder’s daughter may not be entitled to vote on the company’s matters or lack the skill to fill the founder’s shoes, while a capable chief executive may be deprived of an economic interest in the enterprise.

International family groups, however, must consider such factors especially when transitioning from founder-led to family-controlled mode of governance. Failure to fully appreciate the nuance of the founder’s intentions can lead to dilution of voting power, liquidity constraints of the shares and even protracted family and shareholder disputes over the wealth and control of the business.

Ownership And Management Are Different Questions

The succession planning for international businesses must always seek to decouple ownership and control, so as to ensure that the founder’s views on the distribution of economic benefits are not conflated with the management prerogatives of the surviving shareholders.

A founder may, for instance, intend for their children to enjoy the economic returns from the business while reserving for themselves the right to make decisions on its operations, or have one daughter run the enterprise while giving the others a share of the economic proceeds. This can be useful, for instance, when the founder has insufficient confidence in the capabilities of the potential heirs but stands to benefit from their active involvement in the enterprise.

The founder’s views on this matter will largely dictate the class of shares that can be issued to the potential heirs. In most cases, the economic and voting rights of ordinary shares are determined by the company’s constitution and the relevant company law.

The different categories of shares will therefore dictate the extent to which a family member can participate in the management of the business, vote on matters of importance and receive dividends from the company. It is important to note, however, that such rights are subject to the terms of any trust, will or shareholder agreements that apply to the shares.

This consideration is particularly relevant to international enterprises as it seeks to address the divergent legal requirements of different jurisdictions. For instance, the right to transfer or subscribe to new shares may be subject to specific restrictions in the company’s governing documents, which in turn can affect the flexibility of fundraising, share buybacks and the overall control by the founder.

A family business, accordingly, should always consider separating the transfer of economic benefits from decision-making authority. This means that the succession process should always consider the differences between the appointment of directors and the transfer of shares. Even after the death or incapacitation of the founder, company law, directorships, fiduciary duties and management responsibilities still apply. The family members, for instance, cannot simply expect to step into the shoes of the founder and take over the running of the enterprise.

For international family businesses, the succession plan should always consider whether the family needs to retain control of shares while engaging independent professional managers, or have a family member as the chief executive while having independent directors who hold a substantial economic interest. This is especially true for businesses with complex commercial structures, such as those that operate subsidiaries and engage in franchising.

Shareholder Agreements Can Prevent Disputes

A shareholder agreement is often a vital element of succession planning for family businesses with multiple family shareholders, outside investors or business partners. It is a contract that sets out the terms governing the relationship between the company and its shareholders. The agreement can be used to set out the process for transferring shares, appointing directors, resolving disputes and addressing the death, incapacitation or resignation of a family member.

Most agreements of this nature usually have pre-emption rights that allow an existing shareholder to buy any shares that another family member wishes to sell. Such a right helps to maintain the family’s majority voting interest while restricting the transfer of shares to outsiders. The purchase of shares will also entail valuation rights, which are designed to protect the buyer and seller from disagreements over the worth of the company.

Buyout agreements are particularly important in succession planning. The right to buy the shares of another shareholder upon their death, incapacitation or sale is critical to ensuring the uninterrupted continuation of the business. It is therefore important for families to consider the relevance of formula valuations or independent expert assessments for this purpose. If the company’s worth is to be calculated according to the average or median profit, for instance, a dispute is more likely to arise if the founder’s departure coincides with a dip in revenue.

The agreement should also address the practical aspects of the buyout. This includes whether the shares will be valued on a discounted basis, how the proceeds will be paid and who bears the cost of the buyout. For instance, if a family shareholder passes away, the remaining owners have the right to purchase their shares from the deceased’s estate.

By contrast, a purchase option can help to ensure that the business survives such a scenario while preventing the forced liquidity of the shares. Where possible, the purchase should be funded with insurance, thereby negating the need to raise cash to settle the claim.

The shareholder agreement should also be carefully tailored to the company’s constitution and local law. This is because a private agreement between the family members may not override the mandatory requirements of the company law. In addition, such an agreement may not be binding on all of the shareholders, especially if they are uninterested in the family business.

Such a document may also fail to override the mandatory succession laws of the relevant jurisdiction. Accordingly, the family should always consult with expert legal counsel, especially when considering the practical implications in different jurisdictions.

Trusts Can Separate Wealth From Direct Ownership

Wealth management trusts are often used in international family succession planning to separate the rights of possession and control of family wealth. By their very nature, trusts are designed to safeguard and control assets, with the settlor granting the trustees the right to deal with the assets on behalf of the beneficiaries.

As such, a trust can be a useful tool for an international business founder to ensure the uninterrupted continuation of the business while balancing the different family needs and succession plans. The shares can be placed in the trust, so that the trustee has the right to manage and control them while the founder and their family enjoy the benefits of ownership.

By virtue of the trust deed and the applicable law, the founder’s successors and other beneficiaries can have access to the proceeds from the shares. The terms of the trust can help to prevent the immediate division of the company’s shares upon the founder’s death while ensuring that the income from it is distributed according to the founder’s instructions.

A trust can also be useful in managing the succession needs of different beneficiaries who require regular income from the business. This can be a more practical approach than dividing the shares and allowing each heir to take a more direct role in the management of the company.

A trust, however, is not always the most appropriate structure for family business succession. Its use often depends on the local law and the founder’s intentions. This is because the law of the relevant jurisdiction will determine whether the trust is valid, whether the assets placed in it are subject to any limitations and how the trust interacts with matrimonial, debt recovery, forced heirship and tax laws.

The terms of the trust deed are also extremely relevant to its success in succession planning. The document will determine whether the settlor retains any powers, whether the trustees can control the company and how its different powers interact. Unless the trust deed provides otherwise, the terms of the company law will govern the relationship between the director, company and shareholders. In addition, the trustee must always adhere to their fiduciary duties, which often prohibit them from treating the company’s shares as an extension of the settlor’s wishes.

Trusts, accordingly, should be considered as a way of managing the succession needs of the founders and their dependents while keeping in mind their ability to withstand the scrutiny of tax and court officials. If the founder wishes to retain control, it is important for the trust deed to state this clearly.

Foundations Offer Another Route For Family Wealth

In some jurisdictions, foundations serve as an alternative to wills, trusts or private foundations. Unlike the latter, a foundation typically has a separate legal personality and can hold assets for the benefit of specific relatives or other beneficiaries identified in its charter.

These entities are typically established under specific laws, which will govern their functions and the responsibilities of their council members. For international family succession planning, a foundation can be useful in holding the shares of the company while ensuring that the control and management of the business survive the founder’s demise.

A foundation is particularly useful for international family succession planning, as its structure allows the founder to retain flexibility while adhering to strict local legal requirements. The documents establishing the foundation can set out how its council members are nominated, the rules regarding the appointment of directors, their responsibilities to the founder and how the enterprise should continue to operate in the event of the founder’s death.

The differences between a foundation and a trust are also critical to the consideration of their use in succession planning. Whereas a trust is based on a fiduciary relationship between the settlor, trustee and beneficiaries, a foundation typically has its own legal personality. The distinctions between the two structures are important, as they determine how the succession terms will be enforced.

A foundation, accordingly, should be considered for use in international family succession planning. It can be a useful structure for preserving the founder’s wealth while ensuring the uninterrupted continuation of the business. It is important to note, however, that incorporation alone does not ensure continuity. In addition to complying with the local laws regarding such entities, the foundation must also ensure that its ownership of the company’s shares complies with the relevant law.

Choosing between a trust and foundation will mostly depend on the specific requirements of the family and the laws of the relevant jurisdictions. The experience of family office or financial centre in a particular jurisdiction should not always dictate the choice of structure.

Wills Remain Essential To The Succession Plan

No matter how comprehensive the succession plan is, a properly executed will remains integral to the transition of a founder’s wealth and company shares to their dependents. A will typically identifies the beneficiaries, appoints executors, and sets out the division of the founder’s estate. It can also ensure that the assets, company shares and other valuable items are distributed in accordance with the founder’s wishes.

For cross-border family succession planning, however, the law applicable to a will should be carefully considered. This is because the applicable law will govern the testamentary disposition of the founder’s wealth and company shares.

The law of the founder’s domicile, habitual residence, nationality and the location of the property often plays a part in determining which law applies to the will. Some jurisdictions make a distinction between personal and real property, while others are more protective of family wealth and impose mandatory inheritance rules.

Forced-heirship laws are particularly relevant to international succession planning, especially for family business owners. They typically stipulate that a founder cannot disinherit their direct descendants from inheriting part of their business.

The situation can become even more complicated for international family business owners. This is particularly the case for founders whose shares are located in the UAE, India, Singapore or European financial centres while their residence and habitual location are in another jurisdiction. The will, accordingly, must take into account the relevant succession laws that apply to the different properties and company shares.

Separate wills can also be necessary when the applicable law does not allow a single document to govern the succession of different property types. If a founder owns different assets in various jurisdictions, separate wills may be necessary to ensure their smooth succession. It is important for the wills to be coordinated with all other estate planning documents.

The family should also consider how best to deal with property that has not been transferred to third parties, such as shares in privately held enterprises or family trusts. A founder’s will can also be useful in determining how their personal assets and property should be distributed to their dependents.

A will can also serve to appoint executors who have the legal authority to distribute the founder’s assets. In addition, the document can identify the financial institutions where the executor has access to the founder’s finances. It should also be noted that a will can revoke existing powers of attorney.

Family Governance Must Outlast The Founder

The documents described above can set out the exact terms of succession and family ownership, but they cannot dictate the conduct of the heirs. A family constitution or governance charter can help with the succession process, particularly for complex family structures. This governing instrument can set out the expectations for employment, directorships, dividend policies and the involvement of future generations.

It can also state the qualifications for executive positions, the circumstances under which other family members can join the board of directors and how disputes should be resolved. The document should also make it clear that the family’s role as owners is distinct from the board’s role in managing the company in accordance with its legal responsibilities.

Some family constitutions provide for a family council that can advise or oversee such matters as education, family charities, wealth planning, and the governance of the company. There are also family governance structures that allow the non-working members of the family to get involved with the affairs of the enterprise.

These instruments, however, should not replace corporate governance. The objective of family governance is to ensure that all members understand their roles while respecting the legal duties of the company’s directors.

The most practical way to ensure that family members fully understand the succession process is to make the terms of reference freely available to them. It is equally important to periodically review these documents to ensure that their terms still apply. It is not uncommon for the succession plan to need adjustment as the founder’s children grow up and pursue their own careers or settle in different jurisdictions. As long as the principles of family governance have been clearly articulated, their practical application can change with time.

Cross-Border Tax, Estate Regulations Can Change The Outcome

It is extremely important to consider the tax and regulatory implications of any succession plan. The transfer of a founder’s shares, both during their lifetime and after their death, can have serious tax repercussions. Estate duties, gift duties, capital gains and stamp duties, among other charges, can apply to shares transferred to the heir, depending on the applicable law. The tax implications of trusts and foundations also depend on the founder’s tax residency, the beneficiaries’ tax obligations, the location of the assets, and the extent of the settlor’s control.

Tax law should, accordingly, be a central consideration in international family succession planning. The succession options should be identified and evaluated in light of the potential tax liabilities and opportunities for relief. The tax implications will differ depending on whether the transfer takes place at the time of death, through a trust, foundation or a transfer during the founder’s lifetime.

It is also important to consider the applicable tax residence rules and beneficial ownership rules. Tax authorities may require disclosure of the ultimate beneficial owners, while financial institutions may identify the source of funds, the purpose of the transaction and the individuals who will benefit from it.

The succession structure should, accordingly, be carefully reviewed to ensure that it is not susceptible to scrutiny by tax authorities, creditors or courts of law. Offshore vehicle structures should not be relied on as a means of avoiding taxation, regulation or disclosure. It is also important for regulators to be aware of the existence of such structures.

A succession structure should also consider the impact on any regulatory approvals of the target company. In respect of the management of an enterprise in a regulated sector, the transfer of shares may require the approval of the relevant licensing authority or a review of certain change-of-control agreements. This is especially true for financing agreements, joint ventures and commercial contracts that have restrictions in respect of the transfer of shares to the founder’s heirs or a family trust or foundation.

A Practical Plan Begins Before A Crisis

The most important thing for a founder to consider as they develop their succession plan is the full breadth of their assets. It is advisable to compile an inventory of the founder’s interests in the business in order to determine the exact extent of their involvement and the responsibilities attached to them.

The review will typically identify the direct and indirect shares in the company, as well as the liabilities in the form of guarantees and credit facilities provided to the enterprise. The founder should also determine the intellectual property controlled by them, the private property owned, and the existing wills or estate-planning documents executed.

After compiling this information, the founder should identify the preferred outcome in terms of succession planning. Some founders, for instance, want a family member to run the enterprise while others intend to leave the management responsibilities to professional administrators.

A legal adviser can help a founder to identify the combination of share classes, shareholder agreements, wills, trusts or foundations that will achieve their desired outcome. The existing wills and documents must also be reviewed and integrated into the overall corporate and family succession plan. Particular care must be taken to ensure that the documents allow for flexibility in share transfers, voting rights, valuation, funding and the management of the company during the incapacity of the founder.

The succession plan should also be stress-tested against potential adverse scenarios. If the founder dies suddenly, for instance, how will the succession process unfold? If a family member has refused to inherit the company or the business incurs significant liabilities, what is the next course of action? What happens if a tax authority challenges the succession structure or a potential buyer expresses an interest in purchasing the family’s shares?

It is not enough to have a succession plan that only works when everyone agrees to it and the business continues to prosper. A practical succession plan ensures that wealth, power and governance continue long after the founder is gone.

Overall, succession planning is not a family matter, but rather a company law issue. Shares dictate wealth, governance documents define control, and estate-planning structures determine ownership. At the end of the day, it is their interaction under the laws of a particular jurisdiction that determines their practical application.

For international family business owners, the main aim of succession planning should be to ensure that ownership of the company survives the founder’s death or incapacitation while minimising the potential for disputes. It is important to remember, however, that the most sophisticated structures are only useful to the extent of their ability to withstand the scrutiny of government agencies.

A reduction in salary can have consequences beyond an employee’s immediate monthly income, potentially affecting the end-of-service gratuity payable when the employment relationship ends. In the UAE private sector, where gratuity is calculated by reference to an employee’s last basic wage, a lower salary recorded towards the end of service could substantially reduce the final settlement. The position becomes more complicated when an employer cuts an employee’s salary without a signed agreement or an amendment to the employment contract.

For example, an employee whose basic salary has been reduced by 20 per cent may find that the employer calculates gratuity using the reduced figure, even though the original offer letter and employment contract continue to show the higher amount. The central issue is not simply which salary appears in the latest payroll records, but whether the reduction was legally and contractually valid.

The UAE’s principal legislation governing private-sector employment is Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, as amended, together with its implementing regulations. The law establishes the framework for contractual wages, permissible deductions, employment conditions and end-of-service benefits. These provisions are particularly relevant when employers introduce salary reductions during periods of financial difficulty or business uncertainty.

When Can An Employer Reduce An Employee’s Salary?

An employee’s wage is a fundamental term of the employment relationship. Under UAE labour law, the employment contract records the agreed employment conditions, including the wage payable for the work performed. The basic wage is the amount specified in the employment contract, excluding allowances and other components that form part of the total wage.

A unilateral reduction in contractual pay raises questions about whether the employer has lawfully changed an agreed employment condition. A business downturn, cash-flow difficulties or disruption to commercial operations does not, by itself, give an employer an unrestricted right to reduce an employee’s contractual salary.

The distinction between a reduction agreed by both parties and one imposed by the employer is therefore important. A salary variation should be properly documented, with the relevant employment records updated where required. For employees whose contracts are registered with the Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE), the applicable procedures for amending the registered contract must also be followed.

A signed amendment or other clear evidence of the employee’s agreement may be relevant when determining whether a revised salary became contractually effective. The precise legal position will depend on the employment documents, the circumstances surrounding the reduction and the applicable requirements for changing the contract.

An employee should not assume that a lower figure appearing on a payslip automatically overrides the salary specified in the employment contract. Equally, the absence of a signed amendment does not necessarily resolve every dispute in the employee’s favour. The available evidence and the parties’ conduct may become important if the matter is contested.

Does Continuing To Work Mean Accepting A Pay Cut?

Employees who continue working after a salary reduction may face an additional difficulty. An employer could argue that the employee accepted the revised arrangement by continuing to perform their duties and receiving the reduced payments over a period of time.

Such circumstances may be relied upon as evidence of acceptance, but continuing to work should not automatically be treated as conclusive proof that every contractual change was lawfully agreed. The employee’s original contract, communications with the employer, payroll records and any objections raised at the time may all be relevant to establishing the parties’ intentions.

Employees who disagree with a reduction should communicate their position in writing as soon as reasonably possible. A written objection can help establish that accepting salary payments was not intended to amount to unconditional acceptance of a permanent contractual variation. Copies of emails, messages and any response from the employer should be retained.

It is also important to distinguish between accepting a payment and agreeing to a change in contractual terms. An employee may continue working because of financial commitments or the need to retain employment while disputing the legality of a reduction. Recording that disagreement contemporaneously can help prevent uncertainty later, particularly when the employee leaves the organisation and the final settlement is calculated.

How A Salary Reduction Can Affect End-Of-Service Gratuity

For eligible private-sector employees covered by the traditional end-of-service gratuity system, the calculation is based on the employee’s last basic wage, rather than the total salary inclusive of allowances. Under Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, an employee who completes at least one year of continuous service is generally entitled to gratuity, subject to the statutory conditions.

The standard calculation provides 21 days of basic wage for each of the first five years of service and 30 days of basic wage for each subsequent year. The total gratuity is capped at the equivalent of two years’ wage. Unpaid absence periods are excluded from the calculation of the period of service, as prescribed by law.

The distinction between basic wage and total wage is significant. An employee may receive housing, transport or other allowances in addition to basic pay, but these components are not ordinarily included in the basic-wage figure used to calculate gratuity. Consequently, the basic salary recorded in the employment contract can have a substantial bearing on the final amount payable.

Where an employee has agreed to a valid contractual amendment reducing the basic wage, the revised amount may be used to calculate gratuity when employment ends. If the employer has imposed a reduction without the employee’s agreement and the original contract remains unchanged, the employee may have grounds to challenge the use of the lower figure.

The issue is particularly important when the reduction is substantial or remains in place for several months before the employee resigns or is dismissed. A lower basic wage can reduce the gratuity payable for the employee’s entire qualifying service, rather than merely affecting the period following the reduction. Whether the original or revised wage should apply must, however, be assessed against the facts and the legally effective contractual terms.

What Employees Should Do Before Signing A Final Settlement

Employees who believe their gratuity has been calculated using an unlawfully reduced basic wage should examine the final settlement carefully before signing documents confirming that all employment dues have been paid.

A settlement acknowledgement or release may complicate a subsequent dispute, depending on its wording and the circumstances in which it was signed. Employees should avoid signing an unconditional declaration that all dues have been fully and finally settled if they genuinely dispute the calculation. If an acknowledgement of receipt is required, they can seek to record clearly that the payment has been received without accepting the disputed calculation, while recognising that the legal effect of any wording will depend on the circumstances.

Maintaining complete employment records is equally important. Employees should preserve the original offer letter and signed employment contract, any MOHRE-registered contract and amendments, payslips and Wage Protection System records before and after the reduction, and any correspondence announcing or explaining the change.

Written objections to the reduction, the employer’s responses, resignation or termination documents and the final settlement statement may also help establish the relevant facts. These records can assist in determining whether the original basic wage remained contractually applicable and whether the gratuity calculation should be revised.

How To Challenge An Incorrect Gratuity Calculation

An employee who cannot resolve the matter directly with the employer can approach MOHRE to raise an individual labour complaint, where the ministry has jurisdiction over the employment relationship. The employee should explain the disputed salary reduction, identify the contractual wage and provide the available documents supporting the claim.

MoHRE may seek an amicable settlement between the parties. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the matter may proceed through the applicable labour-dispute resolution process, including referral to the competent court where required. The procedure and available remedies depend on the nature and value of the claim and the rules in force.

Employees should also be aware that labour claims are subject to statutory time limits. Under the UAE Labour Law, claims relating to rights arising under the law are generally not heard after two years from the termination of the employment relationship, subject to the applicable statutory provisions and any relevant exceptions. Seeking advice or lodging a complaint promptly can help avoid difficulties associated with limitation periods.

The applicable route may differ for employees working in jurisdictions with separate employment legislation, including the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market, or for workers outside the ordinary federal private-sector framework.

Ultimately, a salary reduction does not automatically settle the question of which basic wage should be used to calculate gratuity. The decisive issues include whether the change was validly agreed, whether the relevant contractual and regulatory requirements were met, and what the employment records establish. Employees who challenge a reduction should document their objection, retain evidence of the original terms and examine the final settlement before accepting the employer’s calculation as conclusive.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) has sued Amazon in a federal court in Boston, alleging that its Amazon Web Services (AWS) business infringes two patents relating to technology used to strengthen digital security.

The lawsuit, filed on October 9 in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, centres on physical unclonable function (PUF) technology, which uses distinctive physical characteristics of electronic components to generate unique identifiers. MIT alleges that AWS uses the technology to generate unique cryptographic keys, infringing patents associated with innovations developed by an MIT professor.

The university is seeking an unspecified amount in monetary damages. An AWS spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit on October 12.

Dispute Centres On Hardware Security

PUF technology derives unique identifying information from minute variations in the physical properties of electronic components. These characteristics can be used to distinguish one device from another and support security applications, including device authentication and cryptographic key generation.

Unlike conventional systems that store digital keys in memory, PUF-based approaches use characteristics inherent in the hardware to produce distinctive responses. This can help strengthen security by reducing reliance on permanently stored identifiers, although the level of protection depends on how the technology is implemented.

Such systems have potential applications in environments where data protection and hardware integrity are critical. Cloud computing providers operate extensive networks of data centres and offer services that enable businesses to store information, run applications and manage digital operations remotely. Security technologies are therefore an important component of the infrastructure supporting these services.

MIT alleges that Amazon uses cloud security technology supplied by software company Synopsys that incorporates innovations protected by its patents. Synopsys has not been named as a defendant in the case.

Patents At The Heart Of The Case

The complaint concerns two US patents, numbered 7,681,103 and 7,818,569, relating to PUF technology. MIT maintains that AWS infringes its rights through its use of the disputed technology.

Patent infringement disputes generally require courts to examine the scope of the rights granted by the patents and compare them with the technology or processes used by the defendant. The court may also need to consider whether the relevant patent claims are valid and whether the alleged use falls within their legal protection.

The allegations against Amazon have not been established in court. The company will have an opportunity to respond, and the outcome will depend on the evidence and applicable law.

MIT has not specified the amount of compensation it is seeking in the publicly reported details of the case. The court could consider monetary remedies if infringement is established, subject to the evidence and applicable legal standards.

Wider Implications For Cloud Security

The case highlights the intellectual property challenges facing technology companies that depend on complex networks of hardware, software and third-party suppliers.

Cloud service providers incorporate numerous technologies into their platforms, including systems designed to authenticate devices, protect information and manage access. When a patent holder alleges that a protected invention has been used without authorisation, disputes can arise over the technology’s implementation, licensing arrangements and commercial use.

For universities and research institutions, patent enforcement can be a way to protect innovations developed through research and seek compensation for alleged unauthorised use. For technology companies, such litigation can create uncertainty over the legal status of particular products or services.

The proceedings do not, however, establish that AWS has infringed MIT’s patents or indicate that its cloud services will be affected.

Similar Lawsuit Against Microsoft

The action against Amazon follows a similar lawsuit filed by MIT against Microsoft in Texas in May 2026. That case also concerns PUF technology and remains ongoing.

The two proceedings are separate, and the allegations against each company must be assessed independently.

The Amazon case, Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Amazon Web Services Inc., was filed in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts under case number 1:26-cv-14600. The proceedings remain at an early stage, with no judicial determination of the infringement claims reported as of October 12.

The outcome could help clarify the parties’ rights and responsibilities concerning the disputed technology, although any wider implications for cloud security will depend on the court’s findings and the remedies, if any, that it orders.

An employee’s entitlement to compassionate leave following a family bereavement depends on the relationship with the deceased, the timing of the request and the provisions of the UAE Labour Law. Although employers may consider individual circumstances when dealing with leave applications, they are not legally required to grant every request for additional time off following a death in the family.

Under Article 32 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, as amended, employees in the UAE private sector are entitled to paid bereavement leave when certain specified family members die. The law prescribes the duration of this leave and the relatives whose deaths qualify for the entitlement. Where a request falls outside these provisions, an employer may refuse it unless a separate contractual arrangement or company policy provides a more favourable benefit.

The distinction is particularly relevant when an employee seeks leave following the death of a stepchild, whose relationship with the employee is not expressly covered by the statutory list of relatives eligible for bereavement leave.

Under Article 32, an employee is entitled to five days of paid bereavement leave in the event of the death of a spouse and three days in the event of the death of a mother, father, son, brother, sister, grandson, grandfather or grandmother. The leave must begin on the date of death.

Consequently, an employee whose stepson has died cannot automatically claim statutory bereavement leave on the same basis as an employee who has lost a son. A stepchild is not expressly included in the list of relatives specified in Article 32. Unless the employer’s policy, employment contract or another applicable provision offers a broader entitlement, the company may reject a request for paid bereavement leave in these circumstances.

The timing of the application is another important consideration. The statutory entitlement is intended to cover the immediate period following a bereavement, rather than provide an employee with an unrestricted right to take leave at a later date. Since Article 32 requires the leave to start on the date of death, an employee cannot ordinarily claim the statutory entitlement months after the event. The provision also does not allow an employee to claim five days of leave following the death of a son, as the prescribed period for the death of a son is three days.

Employees seeking bereavement leave must also provide appropriate documentation. Article 32 requires proof of the death issued by the relevant authorities. Employers may therefore ask for the necessary official documentation when assessing whether an employee qualifies for the statutory benefit.

In a case where an employee has already travelled to his home country on unpaid leave following the death of his stepson and subsequently requests an additional five days of compassionate leave, the employer may refuse the additional request under the statutory bereavement provisions. The employee has no automatic right to convert the unpaid absence into paid bereavement leave or extend it on the basis of a relationship that is not covered by the law.

However, the absence of a statutory entitlement does not prevent an employer from granting additional leave voluntarily. A company may consider the employee’s circumstances and approve further paid or unpaid leave under its internal policies, employment contract or discretionary arrangements. Such approval would be separate from the minimum entitlement provided by the Labour Law.

The position is different when it comes to unpaid leave. Under Article 33 of Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021, an employee may take unpaid leave with the employer’s approval. The provision does not give employees an unrestricted right to absent themselves from work without pay; the employer’s consent is required, unless another applicable legal provision provides otherwise.

The law also establishes a specific consequence for an employee’s service record. Unpaid leave is excluded from the employee’s period of service with the employer and from the period of contributions to the retirement scheme, in accordance with the applicable legislation. Accordingly, an approved period of unpaid leave is not counted towards the employee’s length of service for the purposes covered by Article 33.

This distinction is important when calculating end-of-service benefits. Since the period of approved unpaid leave is excluded from the employee’s service term, it must be treated accordingly when determining the qualifying period of service for end-of-service benefits under the applicable rules. The precise calculation will depend on the employee’s circumstances and the legal provisions governing the particular benefit.

Employers and employees should therefore distinguish between statutory bereavement leave, additional compassionate leave granted at the employer’s discretion and approved unpaid leave. The first is governed by the eligibility conditions and durations prescribed by Article 32, while the second depends on the applicable employment arrangements and the employer’s decision. Unpaid leave, meanwhile, requires approval and carries consequences for the calculation of the employee’s service period.

For employees dealing with a family bereavement, understanding these distinctions can help avoid disputes over leave entitlement, attendance and end-of-service calculations. Employers should assess each request against the applicable law and their own policies, while ensuring that any additional benefits offered by the company are administered consistently.

The Trump administration’s plan to livestream a military execution for the first time in nearly a century has no clear legal precedent and revives a practice more commonly associated today with authoritarian governments, military law professors and legal historians have said.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed on Thursday that the public would be able to watch the planned December 3 execution of Nidal Hasan, the former US Army physician sentenced to death for the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, which killed 13 people and wounded 32 others.

Hegseth presented the execution, which would be the first carried out by the US military since 1961 and the first by firing squad since the Second World War, as a means of deterring serious crimes.

“People need to understand that there’s serious consequences for these types of things,” he told conservative news outlet Real America’s Voice in an interview aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.

His justification has failed to convince several military law professors and historians, who say changing public attitudes towards capital punishment have made public executions increasingly difficult to contemplate. The last public execution in the United States took place in the 1930s. Although some countries have carried out public executions in recent years, the practice remains rare.

Legal experts have suggested that the administration’s plan could be an attempt to generate political support for its renewed use of the death penalty, particularly following a recent botched execution in Tennessee.

“What is really going on here is basically a performative action and one that smacks of spectacle,” said Eugene Fidell, a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School and co-founder of the National Institute of Military Justice.

It remains unclear whether Hasan will seek a writ of habeas corpus to prevent the livestreaming of his execution or challenge the execution itself, Fidell said.

Fall And Rise

Hegseth’s announcement follows the botched execution of Christa Pike, a Tennessee woman sentenced to death for a 1995 murder. It was the second time the state had failed to execute a prisoner this year.

The United Nations Human Rights Office, which supports the abolition of the death penalty, condemned Pike’s failed execution as “abhorrent and cruel”. The organisation has also said that plans to livestream Hasan’s execution would violate the prohibition on torture.

The Death Penalty Information Center, a non-profit organisation that monitors capital punishment in the United States, has no record of an execution being livestreamed.

Robin M. Maher, the organisation’s executive director, said in an email that she was “not aware of any regulation or historical precedent for a military execution to be live streamed on the internet or otherwise made widely available to the public”.

Public executions remain uncommon internationally. Amnesty International recorded at least 17 in 2025, including at least 11 in Iran and six in Afghanistan.

“Public executions are typically held in authoritarian countries to instill fear in the population, and to show the power and control of the government,” Maher said.

There is no federal law specifically prohibiting public executions, largely because there has been little public demand to witness them, Fidell said.

“Who would’ve dreamt that somebody would think of livestreaming an execution?” he said.

Executions carried out by US states had been declining for much of the two decades before a resurgence following the Covid-19 pandemic, driven largely by Republican-led states.

Twenty-four states and Washington, DC, have abolished the death penalty. Among the jurisdictions that retain it, only six had carried out executions this year, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Florida accounted for the largest share, executing 16 people in 2026.

Several states that retain capital punishment have introduced restrictions on who may witness executions.

In Tennessee, state law limits attendance to immediate adult family members of the victim and the condemned prisoner, up to seven members of the news media and a small number of other individuals. Florida law requires a prison warden to select 12 citizens to witness an execution. By custom, those witnesses are drawn from members of the media, while other observers are largely excluded.

Opinion polls have also indicated a sustained decline in public support for capital punishment. A little more than half of respondents supported the death penalty for murder in a Gallup poll conducted last year, compared with nearly 70 per cent of Americans who expressed support for it when asked the same question 20 years earlier.

Trump’s Revival

Military law professors say the rationale for livestreaming Hasan’s execution remains unclear, even as President Donald Trump has sought to expand the use of capital punishment during both of his terms in office.

“There are always witnesses to any state-mandated or federal mandated execution, but to open it to a crowd hasn’t been done in almost a hundred years,” said Jonathan Lurie, a retired professor of American legal history at Rutgers University.

The US Bureau of Prisons ended a 17-year hiatus in July 2020 when it executed Daniel Lee after his unsuccessful appeal to the Supreme Court. The Trump administration then moved to carry out the executions of 12 more inmates during the remaining months of his first term. The final execution took place four days before President Joe Biden was inaugurated.

One of Trump’s first actions after returning to office last year was to sign an executive order rescinding the moratorium on federal executions introduced by the Biden administration. The order directed the attorney general to seek the death penalty for “all crimes of a severity demanding its use”.

It also instructed the attorney general to examine whether 37 federal inmates whose death sentences had been commuted by Biden could face capital charges at state level, while encouraging state attorneys general to pursue the death penalty more broadly.

Trump signed a second executive order during a law enforcement surge in Washington, directing US Attorney Jeanine Pirro to seek the death penalty wherever possible.

The Washington, DC, Council abolished capital punishment for local crimes in 1981. Pirro has said she will seek the death penalty for a Chicago man charged with murdering two Israeli embassy staff members last year if he is convicted.

The US military plans to livestream the December 3 execution by firing squad of Nidal Hasan, the former Army psychiatrist convicted of killing 13 people in the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.

If carried out as planned, the execution would mark the first known broadcast or livestream of a lawful execution, according to death penalty experts.

Executions are generally conducted behind prison walls, while internet platforms and governments have spent years trying to restrict the circulation of graphic execution footage.

Has A Lawful Execution Ever Been Livestreamed Or Broadcast To The Public Before?

Death penalty experts consulted by Reuters said they were unaware of any previous lawful execution that had been livestreamed or broadcast to a public audience.

Footage of executions has occasionally emerged after the event. The hanging of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in 2006, for example, was seen around the world after official and unofficial recordings circulated online and through broadcasters, although the execution was not shown live.

Broadcasts and livestreams are now common for court proceedings, parliamentary debates and other state functions, but judicial executions have remained outside this practice.

How Unusual Is This Compared With Modern Execution Practices Worldwide?

Public executions have become rare across much of the world, with most countries that retain the death penalty carrying them out away from public view.

According to Amnesty International, public executions documented in recent years have been concentrated largely in Iran and Taliban-run Afghanistan.

The planned execution would also be unusual in the United States. Public executions largely disappeared during the 20th century, and death penalty experts cited by Reuters said the last legally sanctioned public execution in the country took place in 1936.

Hasan's execution would also mark the first firing-squad execution by the US military since 1945, when Eddie Slovik was executed after being convicted of desertion during the Second World War.

How Has The Internet Changed The Circulation Of Execution Footage?

The internet has transformed execution imagery from material once confined largely to local audiences into content capable of reaching viewers worldwide within minutes.

Militant groups such as Islamic State became notorious for producing professionally edited execution videos and distributing them online as propaganda and recruitment tools.

Criminal organisations, including Mexican drug cartels, have also circulated violent footage to intimidate rivals, threaten communities and project power.

The speed at which users can copy, repost and redistribute content has made it increasingly difficult for governments and technology companies to control its spread. Once graphic footage enters the online ecosystem, removing the original material may do little to prevent further circulation through other accounts and platforms.

What Has Been The Reaction From Governments And Technology Companies?

Governments and technology companies have generally moved in the opposite direction, seeking to restrict rather than expand public access to graphic execution footage.

Major social media platforms have spent years removing execution videos linked to extremist organisations and other violent groups, citing concerns about violent content and its use for propaganda.

One of the first public governmental reactions to the planned livestream came from New Zealand, where the chief censor said authorities would have little practical ability to prevent residents from accessing a livestream while it was taking place.

Live broadcasts pose particular challenges for platforms because footage can be viewed, copied and redistributed before moderation systems have an opportunity to intervene. Even when a platform removes a stream, copies may already have been shared elsewhere.

The issue also extends beyond online moderation. Even countries that have retained public executions have often restricted filming and broadcasting. Saudi Arabia historically carried out executions in public before spectators, but recording them was prohibited, and public executions had largely ceased by 2019.

The proposed US livestream would therefore represent a departure from the modern practice of keeping judicial executions away from public broadcasts, raising questions about the boundaries between government transparency, public access and restrictions on the circulation of graphic violence.

Renewing a tenancy in Dubai can raise questions about rent increases, agent commissions and registration costs. However, tenants do not have to accept every charge demanded by a landlord or property manager. The rules governing rental increases and tenancy renewals set clear limits on what can be imposed, while official registration fees remain separate from charges linked to renewing a lease.

Here is what tenants need to know about rent increases, renewal fees and other costs when extending a Dubai tenancy contract.

How Much Can Your Landlord Increase the Rent?

Rent increases at renewal are governed by Dubai Decree No. 43 of 2013 and the applicable rental index. Depending on how far the existing rent falls below the average rental value for comparable properties, the permitted increase ranges from zero to a maximum of 20 per cent. The amount a landlord can charge therefore depends on the difference between the current rent and the applicable benchmark, rather than simply on the landlord’s assessment of prevailing market prices.

A landlord must also give the tenant at least 90 days’ written notice of any proposed change to the rent or other terms of the tenancy contract before it expires, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The Rental Disputes Center (RDC), the judicial body responsible for resolving rental disputes in Dubai, has confirmed the notice requirement for parties seeking to amend tenancy terms. Tenants should therefore check both the proposed increase and whether the required notice has been served.

Can a Landlord Charge a Rent Renewal Fee?

No. In 2020, the RDC clarified that landlords and their representatives, including real estate management companies and leasing offices, cannot charge tenants a fee simply for renewing a tenancy contract. The position is intended to prevent landlords or property managers from adding charges that are not permitted under the applicable rental rules.

The RDC has also stated that landlords and their representatives cannot insert a special clause into a tenancy contract requiring payment of a renewal fee. A charge described as an administrative, lease-renewal or processing fee does not become permissible merely because it is given a different name. Tenants who encounter such demands should ask the landlord or property manager to identify the legal basis for the charge before making payment.

Can a Real Estate Agent Charge a Renewal Fee?

Tenants should examine their tenancy contract and any separate agreement with a real estate agent before agreeing to pay additional charges. The distinction is between a fee imposed simply because a lease is being renewed and payment for a separate service that the tenant has expressly agreed to purchase.

Where an agent has been specifically engaged to negotiate renewal terms or prepare documents, any service charge will depend on the nature of the work, the agreement with the party responsible for payment and the applicable rules. A landlord or property manager cannot, however, automatically impose an arbitrary renewal charge on a tenant as a condition of extending the tenancy. Tenants should establish who commissioned the service and who agreed to pay for it.

Commission and other setup costs should also be distinguished from rent and renewal fees. Before paying an additional amount, tenants should check the terms agreed when the original tenancy was signed and establish whether the charge was clearly disclosed in a separate agreement. A demand made at renewal should not be treated as automatically payable simply because it comes from an agent or property management company.

What About Ejari Renewal Fees?

Ejari registration is a separate matter from any fee charged by a landlord or agent for renewing a lease. The Dubai Land Department (DLD) publishes official charges for registering tenancy contracts, with the amount depending on the registration channel used.

The DLD lists the cost of registering a tenancy contract through the Dubai REST app or its website at Dh177.75, including applicable service partner, knowledge and innovation fees. Registration through a Real Estate Services Trustee Centre carries a listed total of Dh220. Tenants should check the current official fee schedule before paying, as charges and procedures may change.

These amounts relate to official registration services and should not be confused with a landlord’s lease-renewal fee. Before completing a renewal, tenants should review their contract, check any proposed rent increase against the applicable RERA rental index and request an itemised breakdown of additional charges. Where a fee appears inconsistent with the rules, seeking clarification from the landlord or the relevant Dubai Land Department authority can help prevent an unnecessary payment.