UAE Resident Wins Credit Card Case as Court Rejects Bank’s Fine-Print Claim

The case was heard by the Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts (ADGM) Small Claims Division. The dispute involved unpaid credit card dues between an Abu Dhabi bank and a UAE resident, Fahrudeen Karim Abubacker Syed Mohamed.

The credit card in question was issued in 2004, before ADGM was established. When a disagreement later arose, the bank filed a recovery case in ADGM, arguing that the court had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The bank’s position was based on updated “terms and conditions” mentioned in the customer’s monthly statements. It argued that by continuing to use the card after these updates, the customer had accepted ADGM as the court responsible for handling disputes.

However, the customer’s legal representatives argued that he had never signed any agreement transferring jurisdiction to ADGM. They maintained that the card was issued and used in Dubai and that continued usage did not amount to consent to a change in court jurisdiction.

The court rejected the bank’s arguments, finding that no amended agreement had been signed by the customer. It also noted that references to updated terms in electronic monthly statements were insufficient to establish consent to a significant contractual change.

In its reasoning, the court stated that routine mentions of updated terms could be viewed as general reminders rather than clear notifications of major amendments. It emphasised that jurisdiction cannot be created through implication, silence, or unilateral changes by one party.

The ruling confirmed that ADGM, as a special jurisdiction, can only hear disputes where both parties have explicitly agreed in writing. Since no such agreement existed, the court held 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, the court referred to consumer protection rules issued by the Central Bank of the UAE, which require banks to clearly inform customers in advance of any significant changes to terms and conditions.

Legal observers say the ruling reinforces key principles in consumer banking. It clarifies that banks cannot quietly introduce major contractual changes, particularly those affecting legal rights, through fine print in statements or digital notifications.

The decision also underlines that continuing to use a credit card does not automatically mean a customer has accepted new legal conditions, especially when those changes involve dispute resolution or court jurisdiction.

For consumers, the judgment serves as a reminder that clarity and explicit consent remain central to contractual changes, even in the context of modern digital banking. For banks, it signals that significant amendments must be clearly communicated and formally agreed upon.