Top Stories

Employees in the UAE who are required to stay away from work during an epidemic or pandemic will continue to receive their full salary without losing any of their statutory leave entitlements, following amendments to the federal draft law on combating communicable diseases approved by the Federal National Council (FNC).

The amendments require employers to prevent any employee or worker who is infected with a communicable disease, suspected of being infected, or identified as a close contact during an epidemic or pandemic from attending the workplace if their presence could pose a risk to the health and safety of others.

The period of absence will not be deducted from the employee's legally prescribed leave, and the worker will continue to receive their full wage or gross salary throughout the absence, provided it is supported by a certificate issued by the competent health authority.

The amendments were approved during the FNC's 13th session of its third ordinary term of the 18th legislative chapter, chaired by Speaker Saqr Ghobash at Zayed Hall in Abu Dhabi recently, in the presence of Ahmed bin Ali Al Sayegh, Minister of Health and Prevention.

The FNC had initially approved the draft law in March. It was subsequently returned to the council with additional provisions and amendments proposed by the Presidential Court in coordination with the Cabinet to broaden the scope of the legislation and address a wider range of public health scenarios.

The new provisions were referred to the FNC's Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, which reviewed the amendments on July 6. After examining their legal and practical implications, particularly in light of situations that could arise during implementation, the committee endorsed the amendments as submitted.

What it Means for Employers and Employees

The amendments place a clear legal responsibility on employers to prevent affected workers from attending the workplace once a certificate is issued by the competent health authority, removing any ambiguity over whether the decision rests with the employee.

The changes also reflect lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic, when uncertainty arose over whether quarantine and isolation periods should be treated as paid sick leave, unpaid leave or another category of absence.

The revised draft law modernises the UAE's legislative framework for combating communicable diseases and strengthens the country's legal preparedness to prevent, detect and respond effectively to future public health emergencies while safeguarding both workplace safety and employees' rights.

As workplaces across the UAE become increasingly digital, employers are turning to CCTV surveillance, email monitoring, biometric attendance systems and AI-powered human resources tools to manage a modern, distributed workforce. While these technologies offer significant benefits in terms of efficiency, productivity and security, they also raise important questions about employee privacy and data protection.

Employers now operate at the intersection of two key legal regimes: the UAE's personal data protection framework and its labour laws. Failing to strike the right balance can expose organisations to regulatory penalties, criminal liability and reputational harm. Understanding where legitimate workplace monitoring ends and unlawful intrusion begins has therefore become a critical compliance priority.

This article examines how the UAE's legal framework governs employee monitoring and outlines practical measures employers can adopt to remain compliant.

The Legal Framework at a Glance

The UAE's principal data protection legislation is Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data (PDPL), which came into force on January 2, 2022. Its implementation was further clarified through Cabinet Decision No. 33 of 2024, which introduced the Executive Regulation. Oversight and enforcement are entrusted to the UAE Data Office, established under Federal Decree-Law No. 44 of 2021.

The PDPL applies broadly to employers processing the personal data of employees, job applicants and contractors across mainland UAE and most free zones. Two notable exceptions are the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM), each of which operates its own independent data protection regime. The DIFC Data Protection Law No. 5 of 2020 and the ADGM Data Protection Regulations 2021 are both modelled on the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and, in several respects, impose more stringent compliance obligations than the federal PDPL.

For organisations operating across mainland UAE and financial free zones, adopting the higher DIFC or ADGM standard across the business is often the most practical approach to ensuring consistent compliance.

Employment relationships are separately governed by Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, which grants employers broad managerial authority, including oversight of workplace conduct and the use of company systems and resources. Importantly, the PDPL recognises compliance with employment and social security obligations as a lawful basis for processing personal data without obtaining employee consent. However, this exemption is limited and does not remove an employer's continuing obligations relating to transparency, proportionality, purpose limitation and data security.

Workplace monitoring is also shaped by other important legislation. Article 31 of the UAE Constitution guarantees the secrecy of communications, while Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Combatting Rumours and Cybercrimes criminalises the unauthorised recording, interception or transmission of communications and images. Likewise, Articles 378 to 380 of the Penal Code prohibit unlawful infringements of personal and family privacy, including photography or recording without consent in private settings.

CCTV Surveillance

Although CCTV use in UAE workplaces is not comprehensively regulated at the federal level, constitutional privacy rights and criminal law protections continue to apply.

Employers should avoid relying on implied consent. Instead, employees should receive clear written notice, either through employment contracts or dedicated workplace monitoring policies, explaining where cameras are installed, why they are used and how recorded footage will be managed.

Visible signage should clearly identify monitored areas. Covert surveillance has no recognised legal basis under UAE federal law, and cameras should never be installed in areas where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as washrooms, changing facilities or prayer rooms.

Certain sectors are also subject to emirate-level requirements, including Dubai Law No. 24 of 2008, which regulates CCTV systems for specified commercial activities.

Email and Device Monitoring

Employers generally have the right to monitor company-owned email accounts, laptops and mobile devices because these assets are provided for business purposes. However, that right is not unlimited.

Monitoring should remain proportionate, necessary and directly related to legitimate business interests. Employees should be informed in advance through clear and accessible workplace policies explaining what monitoring takes place and why.

Monitoring should not extend to employees' personal email accounts, private messaging applications or family communications. Under the Cybercrimes Law, unauthorised interception of personal communications may expose employers to both criminal liability and regulatory enforcement.

Similar principles apply to telephone monitoring. Under telecommunications legislation and the Penal Code, recording telephone conversations without informing all parties is generally prohibited. This is why customer service centres commonly play an automated notification before recording calls.

Biometric Attendance and Sensitive Personal Data

Fingerprint scanners and facial recognition systems have become commonplace across UAE workplaces. However, biometric information is classified as sensitive personal data under the PDPL, alongside health, genetic and religious information.

Because of its sensitive nature, employers must adopt enhanced safeguards before processing biometric data. These include conducting documented assessments of necessity and proportionality, limiting access to biometric records, encrypting stored data, defining clear retention periods and, where appropriate, carrying out a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) before implementation.

Employees should also receive a clear explanation of why biometric systems are used. Where reasonably practicable, employers should consider offering alternative attendance methods, such as access cards or PIN-based systems, particularly where employees raise legitimate medical, religious or personal objections.

AI-Powered HR Tools

Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming recruitment, workforce planning and employee performance management across the UAE.

Unlike the European Union, the UAE has not yet enacted comprehensive AI legislation. Instead, AI governance is based on a combination of the PDPL, the UAE Charter for the Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence issued in June 2024, the National AI Strategy 2031, and, for DIFC entities, Regulation 10 governing autonomous and semi-autonomous systems.

Where AI systems process employee data, employers must continue to comply with the PDPL's core principles, including lawful processing, transparency, purpose limitation and respect for employees' rights, including the right to challenge decisions based solely on automated processing.

Human oversight should remain central to significant employment decisions, particularly recruitment, promotion, disciplinary action and termination. Employers should also document how AI systems function, the data used to train them, and the measures adopted to identify and mitigate algorithmic bias.

Best Practices for Employers

To minimise legal and regulatory risk, employers should:

• Develop comprehensive written policies governing CCTV, email monitoring, device usage, telephone recording, biometric systems and AI-enabled HR tools.
• Clearly identify and document the lawful basis for each processing activity, recognising that employee consent may not always be freely given in an employment context.
• Apply the principles of data minimisation and purpose limitation by collecting only the information necessary for legitimate business purposes.
• Protect sensitive personal data through encryption, access controls and clearly defined retention periods.
• Assess cross-border transfers of employee data to ensure compliance with the PDPL's international transfer requirements.
• Maintain meaningful human oversight of AI-assisted employment decisions and ensure decisions can be explained where necessary.
• Regularly train HR, IT and management teams on privacy obligations while reviewing workplace policies in line with evolving guidance issued by the UAE Data Office.
  
  

Conclusion

Employee monitoring is neither prohibited nor unrestricted under UAE law. Instead, employers must strike a careful balance between legitimate business interests and employees' fundamental privacy rights.

Organisations that embrace transparency, proportionality and robust governance — supported by clear policies, documented lawful processing and strong cybersecurity measures — will be best positioned to harness the benefits of workplace technology while remaining fully compliant with the UAE's evolving legal and regulatory landscape.

The UAE's Federal Tax Authority (FTA) has published its most comprehensive compilation of Corporate Tax private clarifications to date, bringing together dozens of questions submitted by taxpayers into a single practical reference guide.

The document, which consolidates private clarifications issued up to May 2026, does not introduce any new tax rules. Instead, it explains how the FTA interprets the existing Corporate Tax legislation across a broad range of scenarios involving Free Zone businesses, foreign companies, investment funds, family offices, partnerships, logistics operators, shipping companies and multinational groups.

For businesses that have spent the past two years adapting to the UAE's Corporate Tax regime, the publication offers valuable insight into how the authority is likely to interpret and apply the law in practice. It also reinforces the importance of ensuring that commercial arrangements, documentation and operational structures are aligned with the FTA's approach as tax compliance enters a more mature phase.

1. Does a foreign company need a UAE trade licence to create a Permanent Establishment?

Not necessarily.

According to the FTA, whether a foreign business has a Permanent Establishment (PE) depends on the facts and circumstances of each case rather than simply on whether it holds a UAE trade licence.

A fixed place through which core income-generating activities are carried out may constitute a Permanent Establishment. The authority also notes that an aggregate physical presence exceeding six months during a relevant 12-month period may indicate permanence. However, activities that are merely preparatory or auxiliary would generally not create a Permanent Establishment.

2. How are Free Zone branches treated for Corporate Tax?

The FTA confirms that branches operating in different Free Zones are not assessed separately. Instead, the legal entity and all its Free Zone branches are treated collectively when determining whether the business qualifies as a Qualifying Free Zone Person (QFZP).

A mainland branch, however, is treated as a domestic or foreign Permanent Establishment, with its income assessed separately for Corporate Tax purposes.

3. Can transfer pricing adjustments affect Free Zone tax benefits?

Not automatically. The FTA says a company will not lose its Qualifying Free Zone Person status simply because its financial statements did not record transactions at arm's-length prices, provided appropriate transfer-pricing adjustments are made in its Corporate Tax Return.

4. What does the FTA mean by 'adequate substance'?

The authority makes it clear that adequate substance involves much more than simply maintaining a Free Zone licence.

It considers whether a business has sufficient assets, qualified full-time employees and operating expenditure appropriate to the nature and scale of its activities.

For example, a property leasing company with no dedicated employees may struggle to demonstrate that it performs its core income-generating activities. Employees sponsored by related parties may still count if the Free Zone company bears the employment costs and controls the employment relationship. Shared office space may also satisfy the requirement if it is appropriate for the scale of the business.

5. Can overseas warehouses or third-country trading affect Free Zone status?

Not by themselves. The FTA says overseas warehousing, shipping or third-country trading arrangements do not automatically disqualify a company from being a Qualifying Free Zone Person.

The determining factor is whether the company's core income-generating activities continue to be carried out in a Designated Zone with adequate economic substance.

6. When is a customer considered the 'Beneficial Recipient'?

This is an important question for many trading businesses. The FTA says a customer is regarded as the Beneficial Recipient when legal ownership of the goods passes to that customer and it has the unrestricted right to use, enjoy or resell those goods.

The authority also clarifies that businesses carrying out qualifying commodity trading activities are not required to perform the Beneficial Recipient test for every individual transaction.

7. Can goods purchased from mainland or overseas suppliers still generate Qualifying Income?

Yes. According to the FTA, goods imported or purchased from mainland UAE businesses or overseas suppliers may still generate Qualifying Income, provided they are ultimately sold to an eligible Free Zone customer that is the Beneficial Recipient.

8. What has the FTA clarified for REITs and investment funds?

The guidance confirms that investors in qualifying Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) are taxed on distributable income rather than unrealised gains.

The authority also says that qualifying limited partnerships investing in companies with immovable property income do not automatically lose their exempt status simply because those investee companies earn such income.

9. Do foreign investors in UAE partnerships always need to register for Corporate Tax?

No. The FTA says non-resident investors in qualifying limited partnerships are not automatically required to register or file Corporate Tax returns where they earn only UAE State Sourced Income and are not otherwise regarded as Non-Resident Persons for tax purposes.

10. What has the FTA clarified about family foundations?

The authority draws a clear distinction between Family Foundations and ordinary companies.

A limited liability company or private company investing on behalf of family members does not become a Family Foundation merely because of its ownership structure.

The FTA also confirms that certain real estate investments undertaken by Family Foundations may qualify for tax-transparent treatment where the activity is not conducted through a business licence.

11. Does intellectual property always need UAE registration?

No. The FTA says intellectual property does not always require patent or copyright registration where protection arises automatically under UAE legislation upon creation.

12. Which manufacturing and commodity trading activities qualify?

The guidance provides several practical examples.

Packaging and repackaging activities may qualify as processing operations.

Physical commodity trading and derivatives used solely for hedging those activities may also qualify. However, speculative derivatives trading does not qualify.

The FTA further says recognised cash-settled derivatives may be used to establish a quoted market price for qualifying commodities.

13. Can shares sold within 12 months still qualify as investments?

Yes, in certain circumstances. The FTA says shares may still qualify where the taxpayer can demonstrate that the original intention was to hold them as an investment for at least 12 months rather than trade them for short-term gains.

However, writing option contracts does not qualify as an investment-holding activity.

14. What has the FTA clarified for shipping, logistics and financial services?

The authority explains that ship ownership, ship management and ship operation can each independently qualify as qualifying activities.

Port agency services and cargo handover services may also qualify, while simply buying and selling ships does not.

For wealth and investment management businesses, the FTA distinguishes comprehensive advisory services from execution-only brokerage.

Referral commissions may qualify in certain circumstances, while brokerage and matched-principal trading generally do not unless they are ancillary to broader wealth management activities.

15. What counts as headquarters services?

The FTA provides one of its clearest explanations yet of what constitutes headquarters services.

These may include group management, strategic planning, procurement, business planning, risk management, captive insurance, administrative support and the coordination of related group companies.

By contrast, routine IT support or standalone marketing services provided to a single group company would generally not qualify because they do not involve managing or overseeing the wider corporate group.

Verdict: Is the FTA changing the UAE Corporate Tax law?

No. The publication does not amend the UAE's Corporate Tax legislation. Instead, it consolidates the authority's interpretation of existing provisions after considering real questions submitted by taxpayers.

One message runs consistently throughout the guidance: Corporate Tax outcomes depend more on commercial substance than legal form. The FTA repeatedly indicates that tax treatment will be determined by the underlying facts, business purpose and evidence supporting each arrangement rather than by legal structures alone.

For Free Zone businesses, multinational groups, investors, family offices and companies reviewing their Corporate Tax positions, the guide serves as a practical roadmap for assessing whether existing structures, documentation and day-to-day operations remain aligned with the FTA's interpretation of the law as the UAE's Corporate Tax regime moves into a more mature phase of compliance.

The UAE is transitioning from paper and PDF invoicing to a government-supervised, real-time digital exchange system, and the change is no longer theoretical. On February 23, 2026, the Ministry of Finance published Version 1.0 of the Electronic Invoicing Guidelines, together with the Mandatory Fields Specification, providing the legal and technical framework for Ministerial Decision No. 243 of 2025 (Electronic Invoicing System), Ministerial Decision No. 244 of 2025 (phased implementation timeline), Ministerial Decision No. 64 of 2025 (accreditation of service providers), and Cabinet Decision No. 106 of 2025 (administrative penalties). The Ministry continues to maintain a dedicated e-invoicing portal as the authoritative source for updates on the programme.

Under this framework, businesses with annual revenue of Dh50 million or more must appoint an Accredited Service Provider (ASP) by October 30, 2026 (extended from July 31, 2026) and complete full implementation by January 1, 2027. Smaller businesses must appoint an ASP by  March 31, 2027 and go live by July 1, 2027, while government entities will follow by October 1, 2027. A voluntary pilot commenced on July 1, 2026.

From each entity's mandatory implementation date, an invoice that is not issued, transmitted and reported as structured XML through an ASP under the Decentralised Continuous Transaction Control and Exchange (DCTCE) five-corner model will not qualify as a valid tax invoice under UAE law. A PDF or emailed invoice alone will no longer be sufficient.

Why This is a Contracts Issue, Not Just a Finance Issue

E-invoicing is often viewed as an ERP or accounting exercise. That perspective significantly understates the legal risk. Because a valid invoice will become a structured, system-generated and government-reported record, the point at which an invoice is considered issued, delivered, received or disputed will be determined by the technical architecture of the Electronic Invoicing System (EIS) rather than by standard contractual boilerplate. This has direct implications for at least five categories of commercial provisions.

1. Payment clauses: Most UAE commercial contracts require payment "upon receipt of a valid tax invoice". Under the EIS, receipt occurs when the buyer's ASP receives the transmission from the supplier's ASP — a precise, time-stamped system event — not when a PDF reaches an inbox or a paper invoice is delivered. Contracts that fail to specify which event triggers the payment period may invite disputes over whether the relevant milestone is ASP transmission, buyer-side ASP receipt or internal approval.
   
   
   
2. Invoice approval timelines: Many agreements provide a defined period — such as seven business days — to review or dispute an invoice. Under the new regime, credit notes must also be issued electronically, while advance invoices must be linked to the corresponding final invoice through a Preceding Invoice Reference field. Approval mechanisms drafted for paper or PDF workflows may therefore no longer align with the EIS process. Contracts should clarify how EIS-generated rejection or amendment events interact with contractual review and cure periods.
   
   
   
3. VAT documentation and representations: Standard VAT clauses usually require the issuance of a "valid tax invoice" without defining validity by reference to the PINT-AE schema, TRN-linked participant identifiers or the mandatory line-level tax category codes now prescribed. Unless these definitions are updated, a party could technically satisfy the contract while failing to comply with the EIS — or vice versa — creating unnecessary disputes when input tax recovery or VAT refunds become critical.
   
   
   
4. Dispute evidence: Structured, FTA-reported data provides stronger evidentiary value than scanned invoices, but only if contractual evidence and audit provisions expressly recognise EIS records as proof of delivery, pricing and acceptance. Many dispute resolution clauses still refer only to "invoices and delivery notes", without recognising records generated through the ASP-mediated five-corner exchange model. Updating these provisions now can prevent future disagreements over what constitutes the authoritative record of a transaction.
   
   
   
5. Supplier onboarding: Cabinet Decision No. 106 of 2025 imposes recurring penalties, including Dh5,000 per month for failing to implement the system or appoint an ASP, Dh100 per invoice (capped at Dh5,000 per month) for late issuance or transmission, and Dh1,000 per day for failing to report system outages. Where a supplier's non-compliance affects a customer's reporting obligations or VAT recovery, existing supplier warranties and onboarding provisions rarely allocate responsibility. Contracts should therefore require suppliers to appoint an ASP within the applicable statutory deadline and clearly allocate liability for penalties or tax losses arising from non-compliance.
   
   

Practical Drafting Steps Before 2027

Lawyers reviewing vendor, service, franchise, referral and technology agreements should consider:

• redefining "invoice" and "valid tax invoice" by reference to EIS transmission and FTA reporting rather than the physical delivery of a document;
• linking payment due dates to a clearly identified EIS event, such as ASP transmission or buyer-side ASP receipt;
• aligning invoice dispute procedures and credit note provisions with the Preceding Invoice Reference requirement;
• requiring each party to appoint an ASP by the applicable statutory deadline, supported by indemnities for penalties arising from the other party's default; and
• updating evidentiary and audit clauses to recognise EIS records as the authoritative documentary evidence in any dispute.
  
  
  The exemptions remain limited, covering sovereign government activities, specified airline passenger and cargo services, and certain zero-rated financial services. Consequently, most commercial contracts across sectors — including healthcare, hospitality, retail, manufacturing and technology — will fall within the scope of the regime. With the first mandatory implementation date of January 1, 2027 now less than six months away and ASP appointment deadlines already underway, the opportunity to renegotiate payment, dispute and supplier onboarding provisions before enforcement is rapidly narrowing.
  
  

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the tender awarded to Kerala-based Alhind Tours & Travels for outsourcing Indian consular services in several countries, including the UAE, and has directed the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to conduct a fresh bidding process.

The ruling comes at a time when many Indian expatriates in the UAE are already facing delays in passport renewals and other consular services, raising concerns that the transition could further affect service timelines.

The court order Kuwait, Singapore and Australia applies to outsourced services at the Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi, as well as Indian missions in.

The Delhi High Court passed the order following petitions filed by two bidders who were disqualified during the technical evaluation stage of the tender process. The petitioners challenged the transparency of the evaluation procedure, arguing that the authorities had not disclosed the basis on which marks were awarded.

The court found shortcomings in the process and set aside the tender awarded to Alhind, directing the MEA to issue fresh Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for the affected missions within one month.

While cancelling the tender, the court noted that “existing incumbents” may be permitted to continue providing services temporarily to prevent disruption to applicants.

However, the final decision on how passport, visa and attestation services will be managed rests with the respective Indian missions.

The Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi and the Consulate General of India in Dubai have been approached for further clarification on the future arrangements.

Alhind Tours & Travels, which emerged as the lowest financial bidder among four shortlisted companies, was scheduled to take over outsourced consular services from July 1.

The company had already completed preparations for operations across 16 centres in the UAE, including a 12,000-square-foot facility in Bur Dubai equipped with more than 45 service counters.

The contract covered a wide range of services, including:

• Passport applications and renewals
• Visa processing support
• Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) services
• Police Clearance Certificates (PCC)
• Surrender certificates
• Global Entry Programme (GEP) verification
• Document attestation-related services
  
  

The Dispute

The Indian Embassy in Abu Dhabi had issued the outsourcing tender in November 2025, following which Alhind was selected based on its lowest financial bid.

However, two unsuccessful bidders challenged the process before the Delhi High Court, questioning the transparency of the evaluation mechanism. Their challenge was not against the technical assessment itself but against the manner in which the scoring and selection process was conducted.

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the petitioners and ordered the MEA to restart the tender process.

Direct Services

With previous service providers BLS International and SGIVS no longer handling operations, and Alhind unable to formally begin its contract, Indian missions in the UAE have been managing passport, visa and attestation services directly from their own premises since July 1.

This marks the first time in nearly 17 years that the missions have handled these services internally.

The missions have also warned applicants against unauthorised agents claiming to arrange appointments or expedite applications.

Officials have reiterated that appointments through the official portal are free of charge, and no third party is authorised to collect fees for securing slots. Limited walk-in facilities are available at the Embassy in Abu Dhabi.

The development comes after India increased fees for passport renewals and other consular services earlier this year, adding to concerns among expatriates awaiting appointments and document processing.

Few issues in family law are as emotionally charged, or as legally complex, as relocation. After a divorce or separation, one parent may wish to move — sometimes to another emirate for work, and sometimes back to their home country to be closer to family. The other parent may object, fearing the loss of a meaningful relationship with the child. As lawyers, we see these disputes escalate quickly, and we also see parents make decisions in good faith that nonetheless expose them to serious custody disputes and even criminal consequences. This article explains the legal framework every parent should understand before seeking to relocate with a child or opposing such a move.

The Governing Law

Relocation is governed primarily by Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2024 on Personal Status, which came into force on 15 April 2025 and replaced the long-standing 2005 law. It applies to Muslims, whether Emirati or expatriate, and operates as the default personal status law where no other legal regime applies.

For non-Muslims, Federal Decree-Law No. 41 of 2022, together with its implementing Cabinet Resolution No. 122 of 2023, and, in Abu Dhabi, the emirate's own civil personal status law, apply instead. These civil frameworks provide for joint custody, giving both parents broadly equal parental rights until the child reaches the age of 18. A party may also ask the court to apply the law of another relevant jurisdiction, although the court retains ultimate oversight and will not depart from the guiding principle of protecting the child's welfare.

The distinction is significant because the answer to the question, "Can I relocate with my child?" depends on the legal regime governing the family. Parents should seek legal advice rather than make assumptions.

Custody and Guardianship are not the Same

The single most important concept for any parent considering relocation is that custody and guardianship are separate legal rights. Custody (hadana) relates to the child's daily care, upbringing and residence, and is commonly granted to the mother. Guardianship (wilaya) concerns the authority to make major decisions affecting the child's life and generally remains with the father. Relocation involves both rights.

This means that having custody alone does not automatically entitle a parent to change the child's country of residence. UAE law does not allow either parent to permanently relocate a child abroad without the consent of the other parent or an order of the court. A custodial parent who leaves without obtaining the required approval risks losing custody altogether.

Moving within the UAE vs Relocating Abroad

A move within the UAE — for example, from Dubai to Abu Dhabi or Sharjah — keeps the child within the jurisdiction of the UAE courts and is generally less contentious than an international move. However, it can still affect court-approved visitation arrangements, school attendance or handover schedules, and the affected parent may seek to vary the existing court order. Importantly, Article 115 provides that custody may be revoked if the custodian relocates to a place that compromises the child's best interests. Even a domestic move must therefore be reasonable and justifiable.

International relocation is subject to much stricter scrutiny. Article 115 establishes a practical test requiring the court to consider, among other factors, the distance between the two countries. The law states that the distance should not be so great that it prevents the non-relocating parent from seeing the child and returning on the same day using ordinary means of transport. The court will also consider whether the proposed relocation would interfere with the guardian's ability to fulfil parental responsibilities. This "same-day travel" benchmark reflects the importance the UAE courts place on preserving the child's relationship with both parents.

Two additional considerations often influence cross-border relocation cases. First, the UAE is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, meaning there is no automatic mechanism to secure the return of a child removed to another country. Secondly, because of this, UAE courts examine international relocation requests with particular care and may impose conditions such as financial security, mirror orders or guaranteed return arrangements before approving a move.

Travel Bans and Concerns about Child Removal

Where one parent genuinely fears that the child may be taken abroad without permission, they may apply to the court or the police for a travel ban to prevent the child's departure through the country's ports. It is an effective protective measure, and urgent applications are often dealt with swiftly.

However, obtaining a travel ban is not an automatic right. UAE courts, including the Dubai Court of Appeal, have ruled that a guardian's authority to restrict a child's travel exists to protect an actively exercised guardianship. Where the parent seeking the ban resides abroad, plays no direct role in caring for the child or fails to fulfil parental obligations, the court may refuse to grant or may lift the travel ban.

Parents should also remember that the current law allows each parent to travel with the child for a specified period each year and permits the court to authorise travel where consent is being withheld unreasonably. Using a travel ban as a negotiating tactic, rather than as a genuine protective measure, may ultimately work against the parent seeking it.

Schooling, Stability and the Child's Best Interests

Every relocation dispute is determined according to the child's best interests rather than the convenience of either parent. This principle runs throughout the 2024 Personal Status Law.

In practice, the court considers factors including the child's education and academic continuity, healthcare, language, relationships with siblings, social environment, emotional wellbeing and wider family support network. The burden rests on the parent seeking to relocate. It is not sufficient to show that the move offers personal or professional advantages. The parent must demonstrate that the relocation genuinely protects or improves the child's welfare. A move that uproots a settled and thriving child without compelling justification is unlikely to be approved.

Who Controls the Child's Documents?

Disputes frequently arise over passports and other official documents. As a general rule, the guardian retains the child's passport, although it must be provided to the custodian whenever authorised travel is required. The custodian usually keeps the child's Emirates ID and birth certificate.

Importantly, UAE law criminalises the misuse of a child's documents and the unauthorised removal of a child from the country. A custodial parent who takes a child abroad without either the guardian's consent or the court's approval may face financial penalties and other legal sanctions, in addition to losing the right to retain the child's official documents. This is an area where parents should avoid taking informal or unilateral action.

What Each Parent Should Prepare

Relocation cases are evidence-driven. A parent seeking permission to relocate should be ready to provide evidence of a genuine and legitimate reason for the move, including a confirmed employment offer, suitable accommodation, school admission, healthcare arrangements, visa status, available family support and, most importantly, a practical and generous plan to preserve the child's relationship with the other parent.

A parent opposing relocation should gather evidence demonstrating the likely impact on the child, including disruption to education, established routines, family relationships and regular contact. Evidence of previous breaches of court orders or any credible concern that the child may not be returned can also be relevant.

A Practitioner's Perspective

Relocation disputes lie at the intersection of custody, guardianship, immigration law and, above all, the child's welfare. The applicable legal rules differ significantly between the Muslim personal status regime and the civil framework applicable to many non-Muslim families. A unilateral relocation, an unjustified travel ban or the improper handling of a child's documents can have lasting — and sometimes irreversible — consequences for a parent's legal rights and relationship with the child.

Any parent considering relocating with a child, or seeking to prevent such a move, should obtain tailored legal advice at the earliest possible stage, ideally before any action is taken.

Employment relationships often evolve as businesses grow and employees take on new responsibilities. A promotion, salary increment, revised job description or change in profession may all require an amendment to an employee's work permit and employment contract. In the UAE, such changes cannot be made informally or through internal company records alone.

The Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation (MoHRE) provides a dedicated service that enables employers to modify employment contracts and work permits without initiating a fresh employment process. The service is available through MoHRE's website, smart application, authorised service centres and Tawseel mobile service vehicles, allowing employers to complete the process electronically while remaining compliant with UAE labour laws.

The modification process is governed by Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021 on the Regulation of Labour Relations, which protects the rights of both employers and employees by ensuring that all contractual amendments receive official approval.

When Should an Employment Contract be Modified?

Employers may need to amend an employment contract whenever there is a change in an employee's employment details, including:

• Salary increase or revision
• Change of job title
• Change in the nature of work
• Change of profession or occupation
• Other contractual amendments requiring official approval
  
  

Any such amendment must be processed through MoHRE's electronic system before it becomes legally effective.

Legal Conditions for Modifying an Employment Contract

MoHRE has laid down several conditions that employers must satisfy before requesting a modification.

Employee Consent is Mandatory

An employer cannot amend the terms of an employment contract — including salary, job title or nature of work — without obtaining the employee's explicit written consent.

The amendment must also follow the procedures approved by MoHRE.

Amendments Must be Officially Registered

All modification requests must be submitted through MoHRE's electronic systems. Any change that is not officially documented and approved by the Ministry has no legal validity under UAE labour law.

Profession Changes Must Match Business Activity

If an employee's occupation is being changed, the new profession must correspond with the licensed business activity of the establishment.

Licensed Professions Must Meet Regulatory Requirements

Employees working in specialised professions or occupations requiring professional licences must continue to satisfy the legal licensing requirements applicable to their profession.

Company Licence Must Remain Valid

The employer's establishment must:

• Hold a valid trade licence.
• Have no violations resulting in suspension of business operations under applicable laws.
  
  

Authorised Signatory Must Submit the Request

Only the establishment's authorised representative may submit an application to amend an employment contract.

Employee Rights Cannot be Reduced

Under Federal Decree-Law No. (33) of 2021, any contractual condition that reduces the minimum statutory rights guaranteed to an employee is considered void unless it provides a greater benefit to the employee.

Step-by-step Process to Modify an Employment Contract

MoHRE has established a fully electronic procedure for employers seeking to amend work permits or employment contracts.

The process includes:

1. Log in using MoHRE credentials or UAE Pass.
2. Submit the modification request through an approved service channel.
3. Pay the applicable federal fee during submission.
4. MoHRE reviews the application to verify compliance with all legal requirements and supporting documents.
5. If documents or information are incomplete, the employer is notified to rectify the deficiencies.
6. Once all requirements are fulfilled, MoHRE approves the modification.
7. The revised employment contract is electronically approved and recorded.
   
   

Where Can Employers Submit the Application?

Employers can access the service through several official channels:

• MoHRE website
• MoHRE smart application
• Authorised service centres
• Tawseel mobile service vehicles, which deliver MoHRE services at the customer's location
  
  

Documents Required

The documents required depend on the employee's profession and skill level.

Employment Contract

Applicants must submit the employment contract approved by MoHRE and signed by both the employer and employee.

Educational Qualifications

Educational certificates are required according to the employee's skill classification.

• Skill Levels 1 and 2: Bachelor's degree or higher.
• Skill Levels 3 and 4: Diploma or higher qualification.
• Skill Level 5: High school certificate.
• Skill Levels 6 to 9: No educational certificate is required.
  
  

Workers earning less than Dh4,000 per month or those who do not possess recognised educational qualifications are generally not classified as skilled workers.

Professional Licences

Where applicable, employees must also submit professional licences issued by the relevant regulatory authority.

Examples include:

• Doctors and nurses licensed by the Ministry of Health or Department of Health.
• Teachers and teaching assistants licensed by the Ministry of Education or relevant education authorities.
• Fitness trainers licensed by the Youth and Sports Authority.
• Advocates licensed by the Ministry of Justice.
  
  

How Long Does Approval Take?

According to MoHRE, applications are generally processed within two working days, provided all requirements and supporting documents are complete.

Applicants receive notification once the request has been approved.

How to Track the Application

Employers can monitor the status of their application through:

• MoHRE's online inquiry service
• MoHRE smart application
• MoHRE Call Centre (600590000)
• MoHRE chatbot service
  
  

Fees for Modifying a Contract

The official charges are relatively modest.

• Federal fee: Dh50
• Business Centre service commission: Maximum Dh72
  
  

Applications submitted directly through the MoHRE website or smart application are free of additional service charges, apart from the applicable federal fee.

The published fees do not include VAT or collection charges where applicable.

Why Official Approval is Important

Although employers and employees may mutually agree to amend employment terms, those changes do not acquire legal recognition until they are processed and approved through MoHRE's official electronic system. Completing the modification promptly helps employers maintain accurate employment records, ensures compliance with UAE labour regulations and safeguards the legal rights of both parties throughout the employment relationship.

Employees in the UAE are entitled to annual leave under the country's employment legislation, but the timing of that leave is not entirely at the employee's discretion. During the busy summer period, when many workers prefer to take extended holidays, employers often face staffing challenges that may require them to postpone or reschedule leave requests. In such circumstances, UAE law allows employers to prioritise business continuity while still protecting employees' leave rights.

For private sector employees working in mainland UAE companies, annual leave is governed by Federal Decree-Law No. 33 of 2021 on the Regulation of Employment Relations and its implementing regulations. The legislation recognises annual leave as a statutory entitlement but also gives employers a significant role in determining when that leave may be taken.

Under Article 29(4) of the Employment Law, employees are expected to utilise their annual leave during the year in which it becomes due. However, employers are authorised to determine leave dates according to operational needs and may introduce a rotational leave system among employees to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of the business. The law also requires employers to notify employees of their approved leave dates at least one month in advance.

This means that an employer is legally entitled to refuse or postpone an employee's preferred leave dates if granting the request would adversely affect business operations, including situations where there is a shortage of staff during peak periods such as the summer months. The law does not provide employees with an unrestricted right to choose the timing of their annual leave.

At the same time, the legislation places important safeguards on employers to ensure that annual leave is not withheld indefinitely. Article 29(8) of the Employment Law prohibits employers from preventing employees from using their accrued annual leave for more than two years, unless the employee voluntarily agrees to carry forward the leave or accepts payment in lieu of leave in accordance with the company's internal policies and the executive regulations of the law.

Imagine a successful investor who finances a trading company run by a close associate. The investor owns no shares, sits on no board and holds no official designation. Yet, every significant business decision — from choosing suppliers and approving contracts to managing bank facilities — is taken only after consulting him. The appointed manager rarely acts without his approval.

A few years later, the company becomes insolvent. As liquidators and creditors begin investigating its affairs, one crucial question arises: Who was actually running the business?

Many people assume that legal liability only attaches to those who have been formally appointed as directors or managers. Under the current legal framework in the United Arab Emirates, however, that assumption may prove dangerously incorrect. Increasingly, the law looks beyond titles and examines who exercised real control over a company's affairs.

What Is a Shadow Director?

A shadow director is a person who is not formally appointed to a company's board but whose instructions or directions are routinely followed by the appointed directors or managers. In other words, it is the person's conduct — not their official title — that determines whether they may be treated as a director.

This concept is often confused with two other roles, although the legal distinctions are significant.

A shadow director remains behind the formal corporate structure while the appointed directors habitually act according to that person's instructions.

A de facto director, by contrast, openly performs the functions of a director despite never having been validly appointed.

A genuine adviser or consultant occupies a different position altogether. Lawyers, accountants, consultants and professional advisers may provide recommendations and strategic advice, but the board remains free to accept or reject those recommendations. Simply giving professional advice does not make someone a director.

The distinction becomes critical where advice gradually turns into instruction. Once directors stop exercising independent judgement and merely implement another person's decisions, that individual may be viewed as exercising effective control over the company.

Recognition Under UAE Law

The legal position differs depending on whether the company is incorporated on the UAE mainland or within one of the financial free zones.

Mainland UAE

The Commercial Companies Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021, as amended by Federal Decree-Law No. 20 of 2025) does not expressly define the term "shadow director". However, it imposes extensive duties and personal liability on those responsible for managing a company's affairs.

Directors and managers may be held personally and jointly liable to the company, its shareholders and third parties if they:

• exceed their authority;
• breach the law or the company's constitutional documents;
• commit fraud; or
• engage in gross mismanagement causing loss.
  
  

Importantly, these provisions focus on actual management and conduct rather than formal designation. This means that someone exercising genuine control from behind the scenes may still face legal exposure.

Bankruptcy Law

The position becomes even more significant under the Bankruptcy Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 51 of 2023), which came into force on 1 May 2024.

The law extends potential liability beyond formally appointed directors and managers to any person responsible for the actual management of the company.

This wider formulation is designed to capture individuals who effectively direct a company's affairs without holding official office. Where such persons continue trading while insolvent, dispose of company assets at an undervalue, or unfairly favour particular creditors before insolvency, they may face personal liability.

These provisions operate alongside potential claims under the UAE Civil Code and criminal liability under the Penal Code, both of which focus on conduct rather than job title.

DIFC and ADGM

The position is even clearer within the UAE's financial free zones.

Both the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) operate company law systems based largely on English common law and expressly recognise the concept of a shadow director.

For example, the ADGM Companies Regulations define a shadow director as a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the directors are accustomed to act. Such individuals may be treated as directors for various legal purposes, despite never receiving a formal appointment.

Importantly, professional advice given by lawyers, accountants or consultants does not by itself create shadow director status. The distinction lies in whether the board retains independent decision-making authority.

When Does Liability Become a Risk?

Questions surrounding shadow directors usually arise in three situations.

Corporate disputes

Where a business transaction results in financial loss, shareholders or commercial counterparties may argue that the real decision-maker was not the appointed director but the individual exercising behind-the-scenes control. Legal proceedings may therefore target that individual instead.

Insolvency

This is often where the greatest exposure arises.

Liquidators and creditors routinely investigate who actually directed the company's affairs before insolvency. If a person effectively controlled management decisions—particularly where trading continued despite insolvency or assets were moved beyond creditors' reach—they may face personal claims under the Bankruptcy Law.

Regulatory and criminal investigations

In cases involving fraud, money laundering, misrepresentation or other financial offences, regulators and prosecutors look beyond formal corporate structures to identify the individuals who exercised genuine control.

An absence of official designation offers limited protection if the available evidence shows that someone effectively directed the company's affairs.

How is Effective Control Proven?

Shadow directors rarely leave behind formal appointment documents. Instead, investigators reconstruct the company's actual decision-making process through ordinary business records.

Evidence commonly includes:

• email correspondence showing management seeking instructions;
• banking mandates and payment approvals;
• board minutes simply ratifying decisions already taken elsewhere;
• internal communications;
• witness testimony from employees and business partners; and
• patterns of decision-making demonstrating that directors consistently acted upon another person's directions.
  
  

Ironically, the very informality intended to avoid responsibility often creates the evidence that establishes effective control.

Practical Safeguards

The solution is not to exclude investors or advisers from company affairs. Rather, businesses should ensure that authority matches reality and that governance structures accurately reflect how decisions are made.

Companies should clearly define who has authority to:

• negotiate and execute contracts;
• approve payments;
• operate bank accounts;
• make strategic decisions; and
• commit the company to significant commercial obligations.
  
  

Boards should actively deliberate and retain genuine independence rather than merely endorsing decisions made elsewhere.

Where investors, founders or consultants are heavily involved in management, their role should be carefully documented as advisory rather than directive. Powers of attorney, delegations of authority and banking mandates should accurately reflect the intended governance structure.

If someone effectively manages the company, formal appointment should be considered rather than relying on an informal arrangement that may later attract legal scrutiny.

Conclusion

Returning to the opening example, the investor may believe that the absence of an official appointment protects him from liability. UAE law increasingly rejects that assumption.

On the mainland, liability may extend to those responsible for the actual management of a company's affairs, particularly under the Bankruptcy Law. Within the DIFC and ADGM, the concept of the shadow director is expressly recognised and carries many of the same responsibilities as formal directorship.

Across all jurisdictions, courts are increasingly concerned with substance over form. The real question is not what title a person holds, but whether they exercised genuine control over the company's decisions.

For businesses, investors and advisers alike, the safest approach is transparency. Those who genuinely direct a company's affairs should ensure that corporate records accurately reflect their role. In modern corporate governance, the gap between apparent authority and actual control is often exposed only when disputes arise — and by then, it may be too late.

Under the UAE's domestic workers law, a maid or any other domestic worker sponsored by a family can legally transfer to another employer without leaving the country, provided certain conditions are met. The law seeks to balance the worker's right to seek new employment with the rights of the original sponsor, while laying down detailed rules on recruitment costs, government fees, visa procedures and contractual obligations.