DIFC opens door to greater employment court access

The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts have introduced a new practice direction aimed at improving procedural efficiency and proportionality in employment disputes brought before the Court of First Instance (CFI), which is the court where all discrimination claims must be heard or where the value of the claim is more than AED 500,000.

Practice Direction No. 1 of 2025, which came into force on 9 October, grants the court registrar discretion to reduce or waive filing fees in employment claims, taking into account the claimant’s financial means, the complexity and merits of the case, and the broader interests of justice. Fee caps and instalment payment options may also be applied in cases of financial hardship.

The new rules also introduce a shift in cost recovery. Each party must now generally bear their own costs, although the courts will retain discretion to issue an adverse costs order if it feels cases have been brought in bad faith. 

This marks a major change in the DIFC’s employment litigation landscape where, historically, the risk of substantial cost exposure has been a significant deterrent to bringing claims. By reducing this barrier, the practice direction opens the door to a broader range of disputes being heard, while the court’s discretion still preserves safeguards against frivolous or abusive claims.

In another notable change, employment proceedings will now be conducted in private by default although the court may lift the restrictions on confidentiality of parties if the court feels disclosure is appropriate.

Emma Noble, an employment law expert with Pinsent Masons in the UAE, said the move would bring the DIFC into closer alignment with international standards.

“The introduction of fee relief and a shift in cost recovery represents a significant change in the DIFC courts’ approach to employment disputes.

“Historically, the risk of prohibitive legal costs has deterred many from pursuing claims, particularly in lower-value or sensitive matters. These reforms may encourage a broader range of disputes to be brought before the courts, but the retention of judicial discretion, especially in relation to adverse costs and confidentiality, ensures that the system remains balanced and resistant to misuse.”