Given the widespread acceptance of electronic communication in legal proceedings both internationally and within the UAE, Federal Decree-Law No. (35) of 2022 Promulgating the Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions (the "Law of Evidence") formalises this recognition by affirming the admissibility of digital documents and notifications, provided certain conditions are met. However, despite these legislative advancements, practical variations can still be observed in how digital evidence is treated by certain local dispute resolution forums, including the Rental Dispute Centre (the 'RDC') in Dubai.
This divergence brings to light potential challenges regarding predictability, procedural fairness, and alignment with the UAE's broader commitment to digital transformation in the justice sector.
What Does the Federal Law Say?
The Law of Evidence provides clear guidance on the treatment of digital communications:
Article 53 affirms that electronic documents shall carry the same legal impact as written documents if their origin and integrity can be verified.
Article 54 explicitly allows for reliance on electronic messages, including emails, as legal proof, provided the identity of the sender and the receipt by the recipient can be established.
These provisions establish a solid foundation for admitting emails and other digital records as valid evidence or formal notice in civil and commercial disputes.
Strengthening the Case for Uniform Admissibility
It is important to highlight that the evidentiary value of electronic messages, particularly email, has been definitively established under Federal Decree-Law No. 35 of 2022. The law recognises that electronic writings and official or private electronic documents carry full evidentiary weight, provided certain technical conditions are met. These include the ability to verify the time, date, and origin of the document through an independent and secure electronic archiving system. The legislator's intention is clear: to move away from a rigid paper-based notion of "writing" and recognise modern forms of communication as valid proof, so long as attribution and authenticity can be reliably established.
This position has been affirmed by the Dubai Court of Cassation in Civil Cassation Appeal No. 468/2024, which held that email correspondence may form the basis for deriving contractual terms, including offer and acceptance, without the need for handwritten signatures. The judgment confirmed that messages exchanged electronically, stored on user devices or servers, carry evidentiary value equivalent to signed, printed documents, unless successfully challenged through formal forgery proceedings.
This jurisprudence underscores the commitment of both the federal legislator and the judiciary to digital legal transformation. Authenticated email notices should therefore be recognised without requiring physical delivery or notarisation, thereby supporting legal certainty and procedural efficiency that Federal Law seeks to promote.
Practical Application before the RDC
Despite the clarity of the federal framework and its general application by the courts, practical inconsistencies still occasionally arise, most notably before the RDC.
For instance, in a recent matter, one party served an eviction notice via email. The correspondence met all federal criteria; delivery receipts, timestamps, and metadata were provided to prove both dispatch and receipt. In this case, the RDC applied the requirement of service through notary or registered post, rather than treating the email as sufficient legal notice under Dubai tenancy law.
This stands in contrast to another RDC case in which the landlord submitted a WhatsApp trail showing that the tenant had received and acknowledged the notice via the messaging platform. Notably, the tenant did not dispute receipt of the message. The RDC accepted this digital exchange as valid service and ruled in favour of the landlord. Both matters involved electronic notification, yet the evidentiary standards applied by the RDC varied, without any material legal distinction between the two.
Why This Matters
While matters of evidence and notice are ultimately subject to judicial discretion, differing interpretations of evidentiary standards can have broader implications:
Legal Uncertainty: Parties involved in similar disputes may experience different outcomes based on varying interpretations of electronic notice requirements, despite operating under a unified federal legal framework.
Procedural Delays: In cases where electronic notices are not accepted, parties may need to repeat service steps, leading to avoidable delays and increased legal costs.
Digital Alignment: As the UAE continues to invest in digital infrastructure and smart governance, a consistent approach to accepting electronic evidence is key to achieving a streamlined and modern judicial process.
Dubai has set a bold and commendable vision of becoming a global leader in innovation, technology, and smart governance including the legal sector.
Forums such as the RDC play a central role in this evolution. While significant progress has been made, occasional variations in the treatment of digital evidence suggest that some procedural practices are still adapting to the broader federal and strategic vision. For instance, where verified electronic communication is not yet fully integrated into evidentiary processes, this may introduce practical hurdles and limit the full efficiency benefits that digital transformation aims to deliver.
Promoting alignment and consistency in the application of digital evidence standards would support Dubai's continuing progress toward a cohesive, digital-first legal ecosystem one that reflects both local innovation and federal legal norms.
The Need for Harmonisation
To support legal clarity, fairness, and procedural efficiency, it is important that all adjudicative bodies, including the RDC, align with the evidentiary framework set out in the Law of Evidence.
In particular:
Digital documents that meet the requirements under Articles 53 and 54 should be accepted without the need for redundant physical service;
Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies should adopt clear and consistent standards for validating electronic service and communication;
Procedural policies at local dispute resolution centres should be periodically reviewed and updated to ensure alignment with evolving federal standards.
Conclusion
The differing treatment of digital evidence highlights a broader point within the UAE's litigation landscape: the need for closer alignment between federal law and local procedural practice. Until greater alignment is achieved, legal practitioners will need to navigate these differing approaches with care.
Achieving consistency across forums will not only reduce uncertainty for litigants but also reinforce Dubai's position as a global leader in digital justice. At BSA LAW, we remain committed to identifying and advocating for procedural consistency and embracing the full potential of digital legal practice, ensuring that our clients benefit from both efficiency and certainty in the conduct of their disputes.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
