Introduction: A Controversial Case

In 2024, the Dubai Civil Court ordered a private company to compensate an employee AED 200,000 after it filed a false complaint that led to a nine-month travel ban. The worker, wrongfully accused of forging his employment contract, was barred from leaving the UAE and missed his mother’s funeral abroad. The court later ruled that the complaint was malicious and intended to pressure him into dropping his legal claims.^[1]
This case reflects a growing controversy in the UAE’s civil justice system due to the increasing use, and at times misuse, of travel bans as precautionary measures in civil and commercial disputes.

Legal Basis and Purpose

Under Federal Decree Law No. 42 of 2022 (the updated Civil Procedure Law)^[2], UAE courts may impose travel bans upon a party’s request to ensure that the defendant remains within the jurisdiction until a case is resolved.^[3] The intent is to prevent debtors or defendants from absconding before settling a legal obligation or judgment.

Concerns of Misuse

Despite its lawful purpose, the mechanism has often been misused. Courts can grant travel bans ex parte, based solely on the applicant’s submissions, without notifying the affected party. Consequently, individuals (often expatriates) have been caught unaware of restrictions until attempting to leave the country.^[4] Many faced severe personal and professional consequences, including missed employment, family emergencies, or medical needs abroad.^[5]

Public Criticism and Abuse of Process

Critics argue that the ease of obtaining travel bans has transformed them from a safeguard into a tool of coercion. In some civil and commercial disputes, parties have allegedly used the threat of a ban to pressure opponents into early settlements. This practice has raised significant concerns about fairness, proportionality, and the UAE’s reputation as an international business hub.

One of the most common areas where travel bans are applied is in cheque execution cases. Under UAE law, the holder of a dishonoured cheque may file an execution case against the issuer to recover the unpaid amount, and courts often issue a travel ban to prevent the debtor from leaving the country until the debt is settled.^[6] While this is intended to secure payment and ensure the debtor’s presence during enforcement proceedings, it has sparked debate about proportionality, particularly where the amount in dispute is relatively small or where the debtor demonstrates willingness to repay. In some instances, individuals have faced long-term restrictions even after partial settlements or ongoing repayment plans, resulting in undue hardship and reputational damage. Recent judicial commentary suggests that travel bans in cheque cases should be applied only when there is clear evidence of intent to abscond or conceal assets, aligning with broader efforts to make precautionary measures more balanced and evidence-driven.^[7]

Judicial Reforms and Safeguards

In response, UAE courts have adopted a more measured and evidence-based approach. Judicial authorities have issued internal circulars and training directives to ensure that travel bans are granted only when there is credible evidence of flight risk or financial harm. The recent procedural reforms under the Civil Procedure Law now require plaintiffs to substantiate their claims with specific proof and provide defendants with improved means to challenge or lift unjustified bans.^[8]

Towards a Balanced Legal Framework

While travel bans remain part of the UAE’s civil procedure system, courts are increasingly mindful of the need to balance creditors’ rights with individual freedoms. Legal professionals and rights advocates continue to call for further reforms, such as restricting travel bans in purely civil disputes or mandating judicial review within strict time limits.

Conclusion

As the UAE strives to modernize its legal framework and align with international best practices, addressing the misuse of civil travel bans will be vital to maintaining public confidence, judicial integrity, and the country’s global reputation as a fair business environment. In conclusion, it can be understood that while travel bans in the UAE were introduced as legitimate precautionary measures to ensure defendants remain within the jurisdiction until their legal obligations are fulfilled, their misuse in civil disputes has raised significant concerns about fairness and individual rights. The 2024 Dubai case demonstrates how such measures can be abused, causing serious personal and professional harm. Although recent reforms under Federal Decree Law No. 42 of 2022 have sought to make the process more evidence-based and transparent, further judicial oversight and clear limitations are still needed to balance the protection of creditors’ interests with the preservation of individual freedoms and due process within the UAE’s civil justice system.

[1] Khaleej Times, ‘Dubai Firm to Pay Dh200,000 to Employee for False Case That Led to 9-Month Travel Ban’ (Khaleej Times, 2024) https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/dubai-firm-to-pay-dh200000-to-employee-for-false-case-that-led-to-9-month-travel-ban accessed 9 October 2025.
[2] Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022 on Civil Procedure Law (UAE) https://www.uaelegislation.gov.ae/en/legislations/1602 accessed 9 October 2025.
[3] ibid
[4] ICF UAE, Fact-Finding Mission Report: United Arab Emirates — Human Rights Violations (May 2017) https://www.icfuae.org.uk/sites/default/files/FINAL_ICFUAE_Fact_Finding_Mission_Report_UAE_May_2017.pdf accessed 9 October 2025.
[5] Khaleej Times (n 1).
[6] Federal Decree-Law No. 50 of 2022 on Commercial Transactions Law (UAE) art 667.
[7] Gulf News, ‘Travel Bans in the UAE: Can a Bounced Cheque or Unpaid Traffic Fine Stop You from Flying Out?’ (Gulf News, 2025)  accessed 9 October 2025.
[8] Federal Decree-Law No 42 of 2022 on Civil Procedure Law (UAE) (n 2).

FAQs