E-Paper
Sign In
UAE credit card case: Court says bank can't alter key terms without clear consent
The court stressed that ADGM, as a special jurisdiction, requires explicit and informed written consent under Article 13(8) of its Founding Law
- PUBLISHED: Fri 27 Feb 2026, 3:53 PM
The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Courts have dismissed a credit card recovery claim, ruling that banks cannot impose court jurisdiction through implied consent or unilateral amendments to terms and conditions.
The decision came before the Small Claims Division, where Justice James Walker McNeill KC found that ADGM lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute due to the absence of a clear written agreement between the parties.
2004 agreement predates ADGM
Recommended For You
A claim was filed on July 24, 2025, seeking recovery of alleged credit card dues from customer Fahrudeen Karim Abubacker Syed Mohamed.
The claimant argued that ADGM Courts had jurisdiction based on amended terms and conditions referenced in electronic monthly statements. However, the original credit card agreement dated back to 2004 — years before ADGM was established — and the claimant was unable to produce a signed copy of that agreement, stating it had been destroyed in a fire.
Stay up to date with the latest news. Follow KT on WhatsApp Channels.
Instead, the claim relied on implied consent, arguing that the customer had accepted amended terms, including a jurisdiction clause, by continuing to use the card.
Defence successfully challenges jurisdiction
The defendant was represented by Ayesha Al Dhaheri Advocates and Legal Consultants, who challenged the court’s jurisdiction on the grounds that:
* No written jurisdiction agreement existed;
* The card was issued in 2004, prior to ADGM’s creation;
* All related transactions occurred in Dubai;
* No amended agreement had ever been signed.
The court agreed, holding that routine references to "Terms and Conditions apply" in electronic statements were insufficient to introduce a significant contractual change such as court jurisdiction.
It stressed that ADGM, as a special jurisdiction, requires explicit and informed written consent under Article 13(8) of its Founding Law.
Central Bank regulations cited
The ruling also referred to UAE Central Bank Consumer Protection Regulations (Circular No. 8/2020), which require licensed financial institutions to provide effective disclosure at all stages of the consumer relationship and ensure customers are informed in advance of any permissible changes to contractual terms.
The judge underlined that jurisdiction cannot be created through silence, implication or unilateral amendments embedded in routine banking communications.
Costs awarded against claimant
After granting the defendant's jurisdiction application, the court ordered the claimant to pay legal costs. While more than Dh27,000 was claimed, the court reduced the amount on summary assessment and ordered payment of Dh9,400.15 (approximately $2,559).
Legal representatives for the defendant described the ruling as an important affirmation that financial institutions must obtain clear, express agreement before attempting to shift jurisdiction through amended terms.
The judgment is seen as reinforcing consumer protection safeguards and setting clearer limits on how contractual terms can be altered in digital banking relationships.
