An Abu Dhabi court has ordered a bank to refund AED 92,854, cancel a customer’s outstanding credit card debt and issue a clearance certificate after the lender failed to prove that the disputed interest and fees had been agreed upon.
A major UAE bank credit card debt dispute has brought renewed attention to consumer protection, banking transparency and the evidence financial institutions must produce when pursuing outstanding payments.
The Abu Dhabi Commercial Court ruled in favour of a customer who had held a credit card since 2013 and claimed to have repaid more than he owed. Despite the payments, the bank continued demanding additional money.
The dispute turned on missing contractual documents. The lender could not provide the original credit card application or evidence establishing the interest rate and fees agreed with the customer.
Following an examination by a court-appointed banking expert, the court ordered the bank to refund AED 92,854, close the card account and confirm that the customer had no remaining liability.
What Happened in the UAE Credit Card Debt Dispute?
The legal dispute concerned a credit card issued in 2013 with an initial credit limit of AED 50,000.
According to the reported court proceedings, the customer maintained that he had settled his financial obligations and made payments exceeding the amounts legitimately owed. However, the bank continued to claim that further payments were outstanding.
Rather than accepting the bank’s stated balance, the customer initiated legal proceedings requesting an independent examination of his credit card account.
He sought the production of relevant banking agreements, historical statements, a refund of excess payments and formal confirmation that the account was settled.
A particularly important development emerged when the bank said the original contractual records were unavailable because documents had been destroyed in a fire at its storage facility.
The missing records included the original card application and evidence of the agreed interest and fees.
Although the bank provided account statements, it could not establish the contractual basis for the disputed charges.
The court-appointed banking expert therefore examined the available transaction history and recalculated the account, excluding compound interest and charges that had not been supported by evidence of an agreement.
The court accepted the expert’s findings after determining that the analysis was sufficiently supported by the banking records.
The Financial Figures Behind the Ruling
| Case detail | Reported amount |
| Original credit card limit | AED 50,000 |
| Total withdrawals over the account history | AED 1,403,078 |
| Total customer repayments | AED 1,605,130 |
| Difference between withdrawals and payments | AED 202,052 |
| Refund awarded following recalculation | AED 92,854 |
| Annual interest awarded on the refund | 3% |
| Additional legal fees awarded | AED 200 |
The figures reveal an important distinction that can easily be overlooked.
Although the credit card limit was AED 50,000, the cumulative withdrawals reached more than AED 1.4 million over the years. This is possible because a revolving credit facility allows customers to reuse available credit after making repayments.
The difference between withdrawals and repayments was AED 202,052, but the court did not award that entire difference.
Instead, the expert recalculated the account using simple legal interest and removed charges that could not be justified by the available contractual evidence.
The resulting balance in the customer’s favour was AED 92,854.
This distinction matters because paying more than the total amount borrowed does not automatically establish that a bank owes a refund. Legitimately agreed interest and applicable fees can contribute to the total cost of borrowing.
In this case, the lack of supporting documentation proved decisive.
Why Did the Court Reject the Bank’s Credit Card Charges?
The central issue was not simply whether the bank had charged interest.
It was whether the lender could demonstrate that the customer had agreed to the specific interest arrangements and additional fees applied to the account.
The bank could not produce the necessary contractual evidence.
Consequently, the banking expert removed unsupported charges and used a different method to determine the legally recoverable amount.
The court also considered the bank’s objections to the expert’s report. However, the lender did not produce evidence sufficient to undermine the expert’s conclusions.
The judgment illustrates the importance of contractual transparency in lending relationships.
A bank’s internal account balance, statement or collection demand may establish that a charge has been recorded. It does not necessarily settle a dispute over whether that charge was contractually justified.
For UAE banks, this places particular emphasis on maintaining accessible records of credit agreements, applicable rates, customer consent and subsequent changes to financial terms.
For cardholders, it demonstrates why retaining account statements and credit documentation may be valuable long after a card has been issued.
What Does UAE Banking Law Say About Credit Card Interest?
The October ruling should not be interpreted as a blanket prohibition on credit card interest or as permission for customers to refuse legitimate repayment obligations.
The UAE permits banks to charge interest or profit in accordance with applicable legal requirements and agreed product terms.
However, the Central Bank of the UAE’s consumer protection framework establishes important requirements concerning pricing disclosures, responsible financing and interest calculations.
Under the Central Bank’s Responsible Financing Practice standards, licensed financial institutions must disclose relevant borrowing costs and provide customers with appropriate information about credit products.
The standards also contain rules concerning the calculation of interest on unpaid credit card balances and restrictions on charging interest on accrued interest.
Importantly, the regulatory treatment of a charge must be assessed against the applicable rules, contract and period in which the charge arose. A current regulatory provision does not automatically determine the legality of every historical transaction.
The October 2026 judgment involved a specific evidential failure and an expert-led recalculation of a long-running account.
It does not mean every UAE credit card balance containing interest is invalid.
Could Other UAE Bank Customers Challenge Similar Debt?
The ruling could encourage borrowers who believe their balances contain unexplained or incorrectly calculated charges to examine their credit card records more closely.
However, the success of any dispute will depend on its individual facts.
A customer who can demonstrate incorrect calculations, unsupported fees or inconsistencies between agreed terms and applied charges may have grounds to seek a review.
A borrower who simply disagrees with a valid contractual interest rate may face a different outcome.
This distinction is supported by another Abu Dhabi case reported in April 2026.
In that matter, a customer sought to cancel a credit card debt after alleging that the card had been issued without authorisation. The court rejected the claim after considering signed documentation and evidence showing that the bank had followed the applicable issuance procedures.
The two cases demonstrate that UAE courts examine documentary evidence rather than automatically favouring either the bank or the customer.
The latest AED 92,854 ruling is therefore significant because of what the lender could not prove, not because it establishes automatic debt cancellation for other borrowers.
The Credit Card Records UAE Residents Should Check
For customers concerned about a growing card balance, the immediate priority is establishing how the bank calculated the amount outstanding.
The most useful records include:
- Original credit agreement: The card application and contractual terms accepted when the facility was opened.
- Key Facts Statement: The disclosed interest rates, fees and material borrowing conditions applicable to the product.
- Historical statements: Monthly purchases, cash advances, payments, interest and other debits.
- Rate change notices: Communications showing when the bank changed applicable rates or product conditions.
- Payment records: Bank transfers, direct debits and other evidence that repayments were received.
- Settlement correspondence: Any written arrangement affecting the outstanding balance or repayment terms.
Where records are missing, customers can formally request the relevant documents from their lender and ask for a written breakdown of the disputed amount.
The key question is whether each charge can be reconciled with the applicable terms and the transaction history.
This is particularly relevant where cardholders have made repeated minimum payments over several years.
Minimum payments may keep an account operating within its contractual repayment conditions, but they can leave a substantial balance subject to ongoing finance charges.
Understanding the long-term cost of revolving credit is also central to managing credit card rewards and avoiding unnecessary charges, particularly where spending benefits are outweighed by borrowing costs.
What If a UAE Bank Refuses to Correct Disputed Charges?
Customers do not necessarily need to begin with court proceedings.
UAE residents generally have access to an internal banking complaints procedure before seeking independent dispute resolution.
The first step is to raise a formal written complaint with the bank, identifying the disputed charges, the relevant dates and the reason the balance is believed to be incorrect.
Customers should request a complaint reference and retain copies of their correspondence.
If the complaint remains unresolved, eligible customers can approach Sanadak, the UAE’s independent financial and insurance ombudsman established by the Central Bank.
According to the official Sanadak complaints platform, consumers and eligible businesses can submit complaints involving credit cards, bank accounts, personal loans and other financial services.
The current online eligibility process states that customers should first complain to the financial institution and allow 15 calendar days to pass where there has been no satisfactory written resolution.
The complaint must also satisfy Sanadak’s other eligibility requirements, including restrictions where the same dispute is already being considered by a court.
Initial complaints are free for consumers and SMEs. A subsequent appeal may attract a fee of AED 500.
Sanadak’s published time limits generally allow complaints up to three years after the relevant conduct or two years after the consumer became aware of it, whichever is longer, subject to applicable exceptions.
For complex disputes involving significant amounts, professional legal advice may be appropriate.
Crucially, filing a complaint does not automatically suspend an existing repayment obligation or prevent recovery action. Borrowers should clarify the treatment of ongoing payments with their bank and obtain legal advice where necessary.
Why the Debt Clearance Certificate Matters?
One of the most important elements of the Abu Dhabi judgment was the requirement for the bank to issue a formal clearance certificate.
The court did not merely order a refund.
It also confirmed that the customer had no outstanding liability arising from the relevant credit card and directed the bank to close the associated account.
A clearance certificate provides written confirmation of the settled financial position.
For borrowers, that documentation can be particularly important when applying for another credit product, checking the status of an old account or challenging an inaccurate outstanding balance.
UAE financial institutions share relevant credit information with Al Etihad Credit Bureau (AECB).
If a debt has been legally discharged but an incorrect outstanding liability continues to appear in a credit report, the consumer should seek correction through the appropriate channels and provide the settlement documentation.
The wider importance of this can be seen in how an AECB credit score affects borrowing eligibility and the way lenders evaluate repayment history.
However, an account closure or successful dispute does not necessarily erase accurate historical payment information from a credit report.
The aim should be to ensure that the reported position is correct, including the balance, account status and any relevant settlement information.
Can Banks Continue Debt Collection During a Dispute?
The existence of a disputed balance does not, by itself, prevent a lender from pursuing an amount it considers legally due.
Nevertheless, debt recovery must comply with the applicable UAE consumer protection requirements.
The Central Bank’s standards require financial institutions to follow fair debt collection procedures and place restrictions on how customers can be approached.
These include limitations on excessive telephone contact, requirements concerning authorised collection representatives and restrictions on visits to a customer’s workplace or home without the necessary consent or court permission.
Customers experiencing financial difficulties should also be given opportunities to discuss appropriate repayment options.
A bank may still take lawful recovery action where a debt is valid and unpaid.
The important distinction is between enforcing a substantiated financial obligation and demanding charges that cannot be supported by the applicable agreement or other relevant evidence.
The October ruling demonstrates how costly that distinction can become when a dispute reaches court.
Why This Ruling Matters for UAE Banks in 2026?
The AED 92,854 judgment is particularly relevant to credit facilities that have remained active for many years.
Older accounts may involve multiple interest-rate changes, revised fees, changes in banking systems and substantial volumes of repayment transactions.
Where a dispute arises, incomplete records can make it difficult to establish which contractual terms governed particular charges.
For banks, effective record retention is therefore more than an administrative issue. It can directly influence the enforceability of disputed amounts.
For consumers, the case highlights the value of examining the full transaction history rather than relying solely on a current outstanding balance.
The reported judgment also follows an earlier Abu Dhabi credit card dispute in October 2025 in which a bank was ordered to refund AED 189,873 in unjustified interest and pay an additional AED 25,000 in compensation.
Although the cases involved different facts, both highlight the financial consequences that can arise when disputed charges lack adequate supporting evidence.
There is no basis to conclude from these individual judgments that all UAE banks are applying unlawful credit card interest or that a broader wave of automatic refunds has begun.
The more defensible conclusion is that contractual evidence and accurate account calculations remain fundamental in banking disputes.
For the customer at the centre of the latest case, the outcome was substantial: AED 92,854 in refunded money, additional court-awarded interest at 3% annually from the filing of the lawsuit until payment, subject to the stated cap, and formal discharge from the credit card liability.
For other UAE residents, the judgment offers a practical reminder.
A credit card debt dispute is not decided by the size of the bank’s demand alone. The underlying agreement, transaction history, applicable law and evidence supporting the charges can determine what is actually owed.
