UAE

The Abu Dhabi Labour Court of First Instance has ordered a company to pay Dh187,711 to a former employee who was dismissed after 15 years of service without receiving his outstanding employment dues.

The employee had filed a lawsuit seeking payment of Dh160,921 in end-of-service gratuity, Dh6,152 in accrued annual leave pay and an additional Dh21,210 under a settlement agreement submitted to the court.

He also asked the court to impose interest at 9 per cent on the delayed payments, recover legal costs and expenses from the employer, and order immediate enforcement of the judgment.

In his claim, the employee said he had worked for the company in a designated position, earning a basic monthly salary of Dh12,000 and a total monthly salary of Dh18,000. However, his employment was terminated without the company settling his outstanding financial entitlements.

The court noted that the company had acknowledged, in a previously issued settlement and its response to the lawsuit, that the employee was entitled to Dh160,356 in end-of-service gratuity and Dh6,152 in annual leave pay. However, it disputed his claims for the additional amounts.

The UAE Federal Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a supervisor who left a group of children at a swimming pool before the coach had formally taken responsibility for them, resulting in the drowning death of a child.

The court dismissed the supervisor’s appeal against his conviction for causing death through negligence. Both the accompanying supervisor and the person responsible for supervision at the swimming pool were convicted, fined Dh1,000 each and ordered to pay blood money (diya) jointly.

The Public Prosecution had charged the two men with failing to discharge their duties of care and supervision and neglecting the necessary precautions to protect the children from danger.

In its judgment, the Federal Supreme Court clarified that an adult entrusted with children cannot consider their responsibility discharged simply because they have brought them to a sports club or another designated venue. The duty of care continues until the children are properly handed over to an identified person who has actually assumed responsibility for their safety.

The incident took place when a supervisor accompanied a group of children from a Quran memorisation centre to a swimming pool at a sports club in the UAE.

After reaching the venue, the supervisor left the children before the swimming coach had started his duties or taken charge of them. During the resulting gap in supervision, one of the children entered the pool and drowned. The child had never previously been to a swimming pool and was unable to swim.

The Public Prosecution subsequently referred two individuals to trial: the supervisor who had accompanied the children and the person responsible for their supervision at the swimming facility. Both were accused of failing to meet their respective obligations and take adequate measures to protect the children from the risks associated with the swimming pool.

The courts found that their failure to provide effective supervision had exposed the children to danger and contributed to the fatal incident.

The Court of First Instance convicted both defendants, imposed a fine of Dh1,000 on each and ordered them to pay diya jointly. The Court of Appeal subsequently upheld the verdict.

Supervisor Claimed Responsibility Ended At Club

Challenging the conviction before the Federal Supreme Court, the accompanying supervisor argued that his responsibility was confined to transporting the children to the sports club. He maintained that once they had reached the premises, supervision became the responsibility of the club's employees and swimming coach.

The court rejected this interpretation, holding that the arrival of children at a designated facility does not, by itself, transfer the responsibility of supervision to its staff.

It ruled that the accompanying supervisor should have remained with the children until the swimming coach had directly received them and begun supervising them. Simply leaving the children at the venue on the assumption that another person would take over did not satisfy the duty of care.

The court emphasised that a proper handover requires more than the physical arrival of children at a facility. The person assuming responsibility must be aware of their presence, understand any circumstances relevant to their safety and actually begin supervising them.

Until those conditions are met, the accompanying adult cannot regard their responsibility as having ended.

The court also considered the child's lack of experience in swimming, describing the circumstances as requiring particular attention and precaution.

Since the child had never used a swimming pool and could not swim, the accompanying supervisor was expected to communicate this information to the coach. Such information was important to ensure that appropriate safety arrangements were made before the child was allowed near or into the water.

The judgment underlined that the supervisor's obligations extended beyond organising transport and bringing the children to the sports club. They included ensuring continuity of supervision and preventing any interval during which the children could be exposed to danger without effective adult oversight.

The court further made clear that responsibility arising from the care of a child does not automatically cease when the child reaches the intended destination. It remains in force for as long as the child is under the person's supervision, unless responsibility has genuinely been transferred to another individual.

Court Upholds Negligence Conviction

Finding no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' decisions, the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the supervisor's appeal and upheld his conviction for causing the child's death through negligence.

The ruling reinforces an important principle concerning the supervision of children during organised activities: responsibility cannot be transferred merely through an assumption that employees, instructors or coaches at the destination will take over.

There must be an effective handover to someone who has accepted the responsibility and begun exercising supervision. A failure to establish that transfer may leave the accompanying adult legally accountable for a subsequent incident.

The judgment has particular relevance for schools, Quran memorisation centres, childcare institutions, sports clubs and other organisations arranging outings and recreational activities involving children. Where several adults or institutions share responsibility, each must understand when their own duty begins and ends.

It also highlights the risks associated with even a brief interruption in supervision, particularly in environments such as swimming pools where children who lack swimming experience may face immediate danger.

The court's decision serves as a reminder that safeguarding children requires continuous and clearly established supervision, rather than informal arrangements based on assumptions about who is responsible. Where a breach of the duty of care is established and linked to a fatal outcome, those entrusted with a child's safety may face criminal liability for negligence.

Dubai Civil Court has declared a Gulf national insolvent after finding that he owed three banks a total of Dh1.029 million but had no assets available to repay the debts.

The court ordered the termination of the insolvency proceedings and barred the man from obtaining new loans or financing for three years, in accordance with the legal provisions governing insolvency.

The decision followed a report by the insolvency trustee, which found that the debtor had no funds or properties that could be liquidated to settle his outstanding liabilities.

The debtor had obtained bank financing worth Dh550,000 in November 2024, with monthly instalments of Dh13,000. After he stopped making payments, the financing bank presented a cheque for Dh550,000 in September 2025, but it was returned because of insufficient funds. The bank’s claim subsequently reached Dh555,000.

In May 2025, the man also secured a personal loan of Dh395,000 from another bank, requiring monthly instalments of Dh9,257. He had additionally accumulated credit card debts with two other banks, with the outstanding balance on one card reaching Dh80,000. The total debt recognised by the court amounted to Dh1,028,980.

Court documents showed that the debtor held a government job and earned a gross monthly salary of Dh20,645. However, the combined monthly installments on his two loans alone totalled Dh22,257, exceeding his salary before accounting for credit card payments and everyday living expenses.

The debtor told the court that he spent approximately Dh21,000 a month supporting his family. The documents also established that he owned no property registered in his name, held no trade licences and had no shares listed on the Dubai Financial Market. He lived with his family in a property owned by another person.

An examination of his bank accounts revealed only limited balances. His sole identified vehicle was a 2011-model car, which the court considered necessary for his personal use and daily living.

The insolvency trustee concluded that there were no assets available for liquidation and that the balances in the debtor’s bank accounts did not exceed what was required to meet his basic needs. The court consequently found that further liquidation proceedings would serve no purpose and declared him insolvent before terminating the case.

The debtor’s legal representative, said insolvency decisions involving financially distressed individuals were based on a comprehensive assessment of their financial circumstances, including their debts, bank balances and available assets.

Such proceedings often establish that a debtor cannot meet financial obligations and has no assets that can be liquidated to repay creditors, he said.

Declaring an individual insolvent is a judicial process intended to regulate the debtor’s legal position under the applicable rules. The resulting statutory restrictions remain in force for three years, while the individual’s basic needs and family responsibilities are taken into consideration, he added.

The Al Ain Civil, Commercial and Administrative Cases Court has ordered a woman to pay Dh10,000 in compensation to another woman for insulting her on social media and damaging her reputation.

The court found that the insults had caused moral harm by undermining the victim’s dignity, social standing and professional reputation, as well as exposing her to psychological distress and embarrassment in front of others.

The plaintiff had initially filed a civil lawsuit seeking Dh35,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, in addition to legal fees and expenses. She alleged that the defendant had used offensive language on social media that harmed her dignity and reputation.

The incident had previously resulted in criminal proceedings, in which the defendant was sentenced to one month in prison, with the sentence suspended for three years, and fined Dh10,000.

The defendant appealed against the criminal judgment. Although the Court of Appeal accepted the appeal on procedural grounds, it rejected the challenge on its merits and upheld the original ruling. The judgment subsequently became final after no further challenge was filed.

In the civil proceedings, the plaintiff maintained that the defendant’s conduct had damaged her personal dignity, social standing and professional reputation, while also causing psychological distress and embarrassment in the presence of others.

After considering the harm suffered, the court assessed the appropriate compensation for the plaintiff’s moral damages at Dh10,000.

The Dubai Commercial Court has ordered two companies and their managers to pay Dh2 million in compensation to an authorised car agent for infringing its exclusive commercial agency rights. The defendants must also pay annual interest of 5% from the date the judgment becomes final until full settlement, in addition to court fees, expenses and legal costs.

The claimant, which has held the exclusive commercial agency for the car brand in the UAE since 2020 and operates a branch in Dubai, had sought Dh10 million in compensation for material and moral damages and lost profits. The lawsuit alleged that the two companies had promoted new vehicles bearing the same brand through social media, offering competitive prices, bank financing and free vehicle registration.

An expert committee appointed by the court examined the allegations and found no recorded import transactions in the names of the companies or their managers since January 2024. However, it confirmed the sale of a new 2025-model vehicle based on conversations, invoices and documents relating to possession, inspection and registration with the relevant authorities.

The investigation also uncovered earlier online advertisements promoting vehicles for sale in the UAE, including details of financing options, registration procedures and vehicle specifications. No comparable online activity was identified for the second company during the inspection. The committee further established that the vehicle had entered the local market through a separate company.

The court rejected objections relating to the electronic evidence, invoices and timing of the advertisements. It found that the confirmed sale, supported by promotional material, was sufficient to establish an infringement of the agent’s exclusive rights. The subsequent removal of the advertisements did not undermine their evidentiary value for the period in which they had been available online.

The court also reaffirmed that UAE legislation applies to free zones unless a specific exemption provides otherwise. Under the Commercial Agencies Law, products covered by a registered commercial agency cannot be imported or traded without authorisation from the designated agent or its consent.

In assessing the compensation, the court found that the infringement had caused substantial harm to the authorised agent, including lost business opportunities, a reduction in market share, reputational damage and expenses associated with restoring customer confidence. Although the claimant had demanded Dh10 million, the court considered Dh2 million appropriate in the circumstances.

The court further held that the managers of both companies had been directly involved in the violations and were personally liable for their actions. It ordered them, together with the companies, to pay the compensation jointly and severally. All other claims were dismissed.

The Abu Dhabi Family, Civil and Administrative Cases Court has ordered several individuals to repay Dh59,153 obtained through a fake trading and investment scheme promoted on Telegram, along with Dh3,500 in compensation for financial and emotional harm.

The victim was persuaded to transfer money to the defendants’ bank accounts in three installments after being offered what was presented as a trading and investment opportunity. The defendants subsequently refused to return the funds.

A criminal court had previously convicted the defendants of fraud and ordered their deportation instead of imprisonment. The judgment also held them responsible for the costs of the criminal proceedings.

In the subsequent civil case, the complainant sought repayment of the misappropriated amount and Dh200,000 in compensation for material and emotional damages. He also claimed Dh2,000 towards criminal proceedings costs, annual legal interest of 12% from the date of the criminal judgment until full payment, and court fees and expenses.

The complainant submitted the criminal judgment, related notifications, invoices, payment receipts and a certificate confirming that no appeal had been filed.

The civil court found that the final criminal judgment had established the defendants’ responsibility for fraudulently obtaining Dh59,153 from the complainant. As there was no evidence that the money had been returned, the court ordered the defendants to repay the full amount.

The court also recognised the financial burden caused by the defendants’ conduct, including the need to take legal action to recover the money. It awarded Dh2,300 for financial loss and a further Dh1,200 for non-financial harm, including emotional distress, anxiety and loss of peace of mind. The total compensation was set at Dh3,500, in addition to repayment of the original Dh59,153.

The UAE has initiated legal action against an individual who published social media content involving the bullying of a child of determination, with authorities coordinating with the platform concerned to take action against the account and the person responsible for the material.

The National Media Authority (NMA) said the content included inappropriate insinuations that violated the country’s social values and standards of conduct. It confirmed that the relevant authorities had been notified to take the necessary legal measures in accordance with the law.

The authority reiterated its rejection of abuse and bullying in all forms, stressing the importance of protecting children and people of determination, preserving their dignity and upholding the values of UAE society.

The action highlights the legal responsibilities associated with publishing and circulating material online, particularly content that humiliates, harasses or exploits vulnerable individuals. Social media users may face consequences not only for creating offensive material but also where their conduct breaches applicable laws governing child protection, cybercrime, privacy or media content.

How UAE Law Protects Children From Bullying

The UAE has several legal safeguards that may apply to cases involving the bullying or mistreatment of children, including those with disabilities.

Federal Law No. 3 of 2016 on Child Rights, commonly known as Wadeema’s Law, establishes protections for children against abuse, neglect and exploitation. Its safeguards address different forms of harm, including physical and psychological abuse, and seek to preserve a child’s dignity and wellbeing.

Although every unpleasant or insulting online interaction does not automatically constitute a criminal offence, conduct that causes or threatens psychological harm may fall within the law’s protective framework. The circumstances, nature of the content, the child’s vulnerability and the evidence available are relevant to determining which provisions may apply.

The law also provides a framework for intervention by competent authorities where a child’s safety or welfare is at risk. The fact that the conduct occurs online does not, by itself, place it beyond the reach of child-protection measures.

Cybercrime Law And Online Abuse

Federal Decree-Law No. 34 of 2021 on Countering Rumours and Cybercrimes provides a further legal framework for offences committed through information networks and digital platforms.

Depending on the facts, online conduct involving insults, defamation, invasions of privacy or the unlawful publication of personal material may engage provisions of the cybercrime legislation or other applicable laws. The precise offence and penalty depend on the nature of the act and the provision under which a case is pursued.

The law should not be interpreted as making every instance of bullying an identical cybercrime offence. Investigators and prosecutors must assess the content, the manner in which it was published or circulated, the rights affected and the evidence establishing the alleged violation.

Where the publication of a video or image exposes a child to humiliation or violates privacy, additional legal considerations may arise. Sharing, reposting or commenting on such material can also prolong the harm and increase its audience, although legal liability depends on the conduct and the applicable provision.

Media Content Standards And Platform Action

The National Media Authority’s media content standards require respect for children’s rights, individual privacy, public morals and the values of UAE society. The standards also restrict the publication or circulation of material that offends public morals or harms young people.

These requirements form part of the wider framework governing media and digital content in the country. In the present case, the authority said it had coordinated with the relevant social media platform and notified the competent authorities. It did not publicly specify the precise legal provisions being invoked or announce a final judicial outcome.

Action against an account or the removal of a post is separate from any criminal investigation or prosecution. A platform may take steps under its own rules, while the competent authorities determine whether the conduct warrants further legal proceedings.

Protecting People Of Determination

The incident also draws attention to the importance of protecting people of determination from discrimination, exploitation and degrading treatment. Content that mocks a child’s disability can cause harm beyond the immediate publication, particularly when it is recorded, circulated and repeatedly viewed or shared.

The UAE’s wider legal framework includes Federal Law No. 29 of 2006 concerning the rights of people with special needs, as amended, alongside child-protection, cybercrime and media legislation. The relevance of any particular provision depends on the facts and the legal issues involved.

For parents and guardians, suspected online abuse can be reported to the competent authorities. Preserving relevant evidence, such as the original post, account details, publication dates and links, may assist an investigation. However, repeatedly forwarding or reposting humiliating material can expose the child to further distress and should be avoided.

The NMA’s response reinforces the principle that social media is not beyond the reach of the law. Online publication carries responsibilities, and content targeting a child or exploiting a person’s disability may prompt action under the UAE’s applicable legal safeguards.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered an event management company to pay a woman Dh15,000 in compensation for failing to fulfil a contract to organise a party, ruling that the services provided did not match what had been agreed.

The Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of First Instance also ordered the company to pay annual interest of 3 per cent until the amount is settled in full, subject to a maximum equal to the compensation awarded.

The case arose after a man and a woman filed a lawsuit against the company, seeking compensation for losses allegedly caused by its failure to meet its contractual obligations. They had hired the firm to organise a party, but the services delivered fell short of the agreed requirements.

The woman sought Dh43,000, representing the value of work that she said had not been carried out as agreed. She also claimed Dh60,000 in compensation for material and moral damages, along with interest at 12 per cent.

In its assessment, the court examined the evidence, including the company’s advertisement and photographs showing the work actually completed. A comparison of the promotional material with the results presented in the case revealed significant differences between what had been promised and what had been delivered.

The court found that the evidence established the company’s failure to fulfil its contractual obligations relating to the party.

It concluded that Dh15,000 was an adequate amount to compensate for the damages suffered and ordered the company to pay that sum, together with the specified interest.

A Sharjah court has rejected a father’s appeal against permission granted to the mother of his two children to travel abroad with them, finding that their safe return to the UAE had fulfilled the purpose of the required guarantee.

The Sharjah Federal First Instance Court upheld the original travel order and directed the father to pay the court fees and expenses.

The case arose from an order allowing the custodial mother to travel abroad with the two children, subject to a legally approved guarantor to ensure their return.

The father said he did not oppose the trip but wanted additional safeguards. He asked the court to place copies of the children’s foreign passports on record, verify their travel documents and examine the guarantor’s identity, residence, financial solvency and legal capacity.

He also sought to retain the children’s passports and Emirates IDs until the relevant conditions had been verified. In addition, he requested details of the travel itinerary, accommodation and return arrangements, as well as clarification of the supervisory role of the relevant social services authority.

The mother’s defence argued that she had completed the authorised trip and returned to the UAE with both children. It said the purpose of the guarantee had been fulfilled, with the children’s passports returned to the father and the guarantor’s passport returned to the guarantor.

Court Upholds Travel Order

The court found that the grievance had been filed within the prescribed legal deadline and was therefore admissible.

Under Article 116(2) of the Personal Status Law, a custodial parent may be permitted to travel with a child for a limited period, subject to a suitable guarantee to ensure the child’s return.

The court said the guarantee was intended to prevent a child from being retained abroad and to protect the other parent’s rights to supervision and follow-up.

As the mother had completed the trip and returned with the children within the authorised period, the court concluded that the guarantee had served its purpose. The additional safeguards sought by the father, including further verification of the guarantor, were no longer necessary.

The court consequently rejected the grievance on its merits, upheld the original travel permission and ordered the father to bear the court fees and expenses.

The ruling highlights the importance of guarantees in securing children’s return from authorised overseas trips, while indicating that objections to travel arrangements may lose their practical relevance once the trip has been completed and the children have safely returned to the UAE.

An Abu Dhabi court has ordered a bank to refund Dh92,854 to a customer, close his credit card account and confirm that he has no outstanding liability after the lender failed to provide documentary evidence supporting the interest and fees it had charged.

The court also ordered the bank to pay annual interest of 3 per cent on the refund from the date the lawsuit was filed until payment, subject to a cap equal to the principal amount.

The customer told the court that he had applied for financing from the bank in 2013 and received a credit card with a Dh50,000 limit. He maintained that he had settled all his dues, including payments exceeding the amount owed, but the bank continued to demand further sums.

A court-appointed banking expert examined the account statements and found that the bank could not produce the original credit card application or documents establishing the interest rate and fees agreed with the customer. The bank attributed the absence of these records to a fire at the premises where its documents were stored.

The expert recalculated the account using simple legal interest, excluding compound interest and charges that the bank could not demonstrate had been agreed. The review showed that the customer had made withdrawals totalling Dh1.403 million and payments of Dh1.605 million. After adjusting the account, the expert concluded that the bank owed him Dh92,854.

Court Accepts Expert's Findings

The court accepted the expert's conclusions, finding that the assessment was based on the account statements and supported by adequate technical reasoning. It noted that the expert had addressed the bank's objections and that the lender had produced no evidence sufficient to undermine the report.

The court also found that the bank had repeatedly delayed payment despite the amount being due to the customer. It ordered the lender to refund Dh92,854, pay the stipulated interest, clear all outstanding credit card liabilities, close the account and issue a certificate confirming that the customer had no remaining debt.

The bank was further directed to bear the court costs and pay Dh200 in legal fees. The court dismissed the customer's remaining claims.