UAE resident wins credit card case after court rejects bank’s fine-print claim

Dubai: Most UAE residents rarely read the full “terms and conditions” attached to their credit cards or bank accounts. Monthly statements often include a short line saying the terms have been updated, and many customers continue using their cards without thinking about whether anything important has actually changed.

A recent ruling by the ADGM Courts shows why that fine print can matter — and where banks face clear limits.

ADGM Courts have not confirmed or contributed to this article. The information contained in the article were shared by the customer’s legal team.

The dispute involved an Abu Dhabi bank and a UAE resident Fahrudeen Karim Abubacker Syed Mohamed over unpaid credit card dues. The credit card had been issued in 2004, long before ADGM was set up.

When a disagreement later arose, the bank filed a recovery case in the ADGM Small Claims Division, arguing that ADGM had the right to hear the dispute. The bank said that updated terms and conditions mentioned in the customer’s monthly statements meant the customer had accepted ADGM as the court to handle any dispute.

The customer’s lawyers at Dubai-based law firm argued told the court he had never signed any agreement allowing disputes to be moved to ADGM. He also said the card was issued and used in Dubai, and that continuing to use the card did not mean he had agreed to change where legal cases could be heard.

The court rejected the bank’s arguments after finding that the customer had never clearly agreed to move the dispute to ADGM.

“The court observed that no amended agreement had ever been signed, and the bank’s assertion that the original credit card application form had been destroyed in a fire was disputed,” according to a statement from Ayesha Al Dhaheri Advocates and Legal Consultants.

The court also found that routine references to updated terms in electronic monthly statements were not enough to establish consent to a major contractual change.

The “terms and conditions” in monthly statements were “insufficient to establish consent to a significant contractual change such as court jurisdiction” and could be seen “more as a routine reminder rather than a clear notification of amendments,” the statement said.

Based on those findings, the court ruled in favour of the card user and confirmed that ADGM, as a special jurisdiction, can only hear disputes where both parties have explicitly agreed in writing. It said jurisdiction cannot be created through implication, silence or unilateral amendments.

As a result, the ADGM court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case and dismissed the bank’s claim. The court also ordered the bank to pay the customer’s legal costs. In its decision, it also referred to UAE Central Bank consumer protection rules, which require banks to clearly inform customers in advance of any significant changes to terms and conditions.

This case matters because it reflects how courts view everyday banking. For UAE residents, the key takeaways are simple:

In practical terms, this means banks cannot rely on fine print in statements or app notifications to rewrite the rules of your relationship with them.

You may not read every page of terms and conditions — and the law recognises that. What it expects instead is clarity, transparency, and proper consent, especially when your legal rights are involved. That principle, the court made clear, still applies in modern digital banking.