Civil Law and UAE Cross-Border Video Testimony Admissibility Rules

1. Introduction

Cross-border video testimony refers to a witness giving oral evidence to a UAE court while physically located outside the UAE—for example, a witness in India, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Australia, or another jurisdiction appearing by video link before a UAE or DIFC court.

The legal issue is not simply whether technology permits the witness to appear remotely. The court must consider:

whether the witness is competent to testify;

whether the forum permits video testimony;

whether the foreign jurisdiction permits the witness to give evidence remotely;

whether the witness can properly be sworn or affirmed;

whether cross-examination can be conducted fairly;

whether the witness is free from outside influence;

whether the identity of the witness can be verified;

whether documents can be shown to the witness;

whether interpretation is available;

whether the procedure respects the sovereignty of the foreign state; and

what weight should ultimately be given to the testimony.

The distinction between admissibility and weight is particularly important.

2. UAE Legal Framework

The principal federal evidence legislation is Federal Decree-Law No. 35 of 2022 on Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions. The legislation expressly recognizes electronic evidence, while Part 5 deals with testimony evidence. (UAE Legislation)

The principal procedural legislation is Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 Promulgating the Civil Procedure Code. (UAE Legislation)

For DIFC proceedings, the position is considerably more explicit. RDC 29.14 provides that the DIFC Court may allow a witness to give evidence through a video link or other means. (DIFC Courts)

The DIFC Court Law also expressly permits testimony by video link, telephone, electronic device or another appropriate means. Under the current DIFC framework, testimony ordinarily remains subject to oath or affirmation, subject to special treatment where the witness is in a foreign country. (Dubai Land Department)

3. The Basic Rule: Video Testimony Is Not Automatically Inadmissible

The important principle emerging from DIFC jurisprudence is that remote testimony is a procedural question controlled primarily by the forum court.

In Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) v Velocity Industries LLC & Others [2020] DIFC CFI 025, witnesses were located in India and proposed to give evidence by video link.

The defendants argued that permission from Indian authorities was necessary.

The DIFC Court rejected the argument that a foreign state's possible requirements automatically deprived the DIFC Court of the power to receive the testimony. The court treated the admissibility of evidence in its proceedings as a matter of the lex fori, while recognizing that foreign sovereignty and foreign law remained relevant considerations. (DIFC Courts)

This is one of the most important authorities for cross-border video evidence.

4. Foreign-State Permission

The DIFC video-conferencing protocol specifically warns that it should not be presumed that every foreign government permits persons within its territory to give evidence remotely to a foreign court.

The party relying on the witness must make the necessary enquiries concerning the foreign jurisdiction and inform the court of the outcome. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore, a claimant should distinguish between:

A. Internal admissibility

Does the UAE/DIFC court permit the witness to testify by video?

B. Foreign-state legality

Does the country in which the witness is physically located permit that person to give evidence remotely to a foreign court?

C. Evidential weight

Even if the testimony is admitted, what weight should the court attach to it?

These are separate questions.

5. Union Bank of India v Velocity Industries

Case

Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) v Velocity Industries LLC & Others [2020] DIFC CFI 025

Facts relevant to video evidence

The claimant's witnesses were in India. The defendants challenged the use of video conferencing and argued that the necessary Indian permission had not been obtained.

Decision

The court held that the question whether foreign-based evidence could be accepted in DIFC proceedings was fundamentally a matter of DIFC procedure.

The court also stated that even if Indian permission had been required, it would nevertheless have exercised its discretion to permit the evidence in the circumstances. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Foreign law does not automatically determine the admissibility of evidence before the DIFC Court.

However, foreign law may remain relevant to questions of sovereignty, legality, comity and practical enforcement.

6. Gabriel Limited v Giacobbe

Case

Gabriel Limited v Giacobbe [2015] DIFC CFI 027

This is a direct authority on overseas video testimony.

The defendant applied to give oral evidence from Australia by video link.

The DIFC Court allowed the application.

The court directed that:

the evidence could be given through video link;

the precise arrangements were to be governed by an agreed protocol;

the protocol had to be consistent with Schedule B to Part 23; and

the defendant initially had to bear the video-link arrangements and associated costs, subject to costs in the case. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Video testimony from another country can be permitted where appropriate safeguards can be established.

7. SPX Middle East FZE v Judi for Food Industries

Case

SPX Middle East FZE v Judi for Food Industries [2014] DIFC CFI 002

The DIFC Court directed the defendant to confirm whether particular witnesses would give evidence:

in person; or

by video link under Schedule B to Part 23.

(DIFC Courts)

Principle

The use of video evidence is treated as a matter of case management and judicial direction, rather than as an automatic entitlement of either party.

This means that parties should raise video-testimony arrangements during the case-management process rather than waiting until trial.

8. Naqid v Najam

Case

Naqid v Najam, ARB 004/2024

This is a particularly useful modern authority.

The defendant sought permission for witnesses to testify by video link because some witnesses were outside Dubai and remote testimony would reduce costs.

The court explained that where a hearing is ordered to take place in person, a witness is ordinarily expected to give evidence personally unless the court grants permission for video testimony. (DIFC Courts)

The court considered factors including:

equal treatment of the parties;

expense;

proportionality;

importance of the case;

complexity;

financial circumstances;

expedition; and

fairness.

The court ultimately refused the general request because the evidence concerning actual cost savings was insufficient and the nature and importance of the proceedings supported an in-person hearing. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Video testimony is discretionary, not automatic.

Cost and convenience are relevant but may not, by themselves, justify remote testimony.

9. Nitin Kedarnath Gupta v Rohit Kedarnath Gupta

Case

Nitin Kedarnath Gupta v Rohit Kedarnath Gupta [2024] DIFC CFI 059

This case illustrates the broader practical importance of remote participation in UAE/DIFC legal proceedings.

The proceedings contained evidence concerning a will executed through a remote process, including participation by persons located in different places and video participation in the execution process. The judgment also records attempts to obtain permission for certain foreign-based persons to provide witness evidence. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Remote technology does not itself invalidate a legal act or evidentiary process. The court examines the particular statutory and procedural requirements governing the underlying transaction and evidence.

10. Nael v Niamh Bank

Case

Nael v Niamh Bank [2024] DIFC CA 015

Although not principally a video-testimony case, this authority is relevant to the broader evidentiary and enforcement framework because the DIFC Court of Appeal considered the limits of public-policy objections in recognition and enforcement.

The case illustrates that procedural or enforcement objections must be tied to a genuine legal defect rather than simply asserted in general terms. (Dubai Land Department)

Relevance

In a cross-border evidence dispute, a party should therefore identify the precise legal consequence alleged:

inadmissibility;

procedural unfairness;

inability to cross-examine;

breach of foreign sovereignty;

defective oath;

unreliable identification; or

insufficient evidential weight.

11. Phillips v Symes

The DIFC's rules themselves identify Phillips v Symes [2004] EWHC 2330 (Ch) among the authorities concerning expert attendance and video-link evidence. (DIFC Courts)

The case is relevant because remote evidence raises questions concerning:

examination;

cross-examination;

reliability;

observation of the witness;

control of the witness; and

the court's ability to assess evidence.

Principle

Video technology can facilitate testimony, but the court must retain sufficient procedural control to ensure that the evidence remains fair and reliable.

12. Carlson v Townsend

Carlson v Townsend [2001] 1 WLR 2415 is another authority expressly identified within the DIFC materials dealing with video-linked expert evidence. (DIFC Courts)

Its relevance lies in the proposition that technological means of giving evidence should be assessed according to whether they permit the court to obtain the evidence fairly and effectively.

The DIFC's incorporation of this line of authority into its procedural materials demonstrates that video testimony is not regarded as inherently inferior or inadmissible.

13. Six-Case-Law Summary

These authorities should be distinguished: the first four are DIFC decisions, while Phillips and Carlson are English authorities referenced in DIFC procedural materials. They should not be presented as six independent UAE federal-court precedents.

14. DIFC Video-Conferencing Protocol

The DIFC has a detailed Video-Conferencing Protocol.

It recognizes that video conferencing can produce substantial savings, particularly where witnesses are overseas. However, it expressly warns that video conferencing is not always equivalent to physical attendance and that the court must consider whether it will facilitate the efficient, fair and economical disposal of the litigation. (DIFC Courts)

The protocol addresses:

local and remote sites;

camera control;

sound and image quality;

witness identification;

oath/affirmation;

examination;

cross-examination;

re-examination;

interpretation;

communication with the witness;

documents shown to the witness.

The objective is to make the remote setting resemble ordinary courtroom testimony as closely as reasonably possible. (DIFC Courts)

15. Witness Oath or Affirmation

The oath issue becomes particularly important in cross-border proceedings.

The current DIFC framework states that testimony is ordinarily given on oath or affirmation. Where the witness is in a foreign country, however, the court has statutory flexibility where the foreign law does not permit the ordinary oath/affirmation procedure or makes it inconvenient, subject to the court's assessment of the appropriate evidential weight. (Dubai Land Department)

Therefore:

Foreign location ≠ automatic exclusion.

Instead, the court can adapt the procedure while considering the reliability and legal status of the testimony.

16. Identity Verification

Before accepting video testimony, the court may need to establish:

who the witness is;

where the witness is physically located;

who else is present;

whether the witness is using the correct device;

whether the witness has access to unauthorized material;

whether the witness can communicate privately with another person.

The DIFC virtual-hearing protocol requires significant control over the remote environment.

17. Witness Must Normally Be Alone

A significant safeguard is that during virtual testimony no other person should be in the witness's room unless the judge authorizes it.

The DIFC Virtual Hearing and Bundling Protocol also provides that witnesses and experts must not communicate with another person about the case while giving evidence. (DIFC Courts)

This prevents a serious risk:

lawyer/relative/colleague → coaching witness → witness gives coached answer.

Remote evidence therefore requires greater procedural supervision than merely sending a video link.

18. Cross-Examination

A central reason for permitting live video testimony is that opposing counsel can cross-examine the witness.

The DIFC rules generally treat witness evidence at trial as oral evidence in public, subject to exceptions and court directions. Rule 29.14 permits video-link testimony. (DIFC Courts)

The protocol requires the witness to be able to see the lawyer asking questions and relevant participants during examination, cross-examination and re-examination. (DIFC Courts)

Thus, a video link should not become merely a one-way recording.

19. Documents During Video Testimony

A witness may need to examine:

contracts;

invoices;

bank statements;

photographs;

emails;

expert reports;

corporate records.

The DIFC virtual-hearing protocol limits what documents witnesses may independently use while giving evidence and requires judicial permission for additional hardcopy material in specified circumstances. (DIFC Courts)

This is designed to prevent a witness from secretly consulting material that has not been disclosed or approved.

20. Foreign-Language Witnesses

Where the witness does not speak the language of the proceedings adequately, an interpreter may be required.

The DIFC procedural framework specifically anticipates interpreters for witnesses and experts. (DIFC Courts)

The interpreter should be:

suitably qualified;

independent;

impartial;

able to communicate clearly through the video system.

The court may also require the interpreter to take an oath.

21. Technology Failure

Video testimony depends on:

stable internet;

adequate sound;

adequate picture quality;

secure connection;

compatible equipment;

appropriate courtroom software.

The DIFC protocol encourages parties to conduct an IT and connection test before the hearing. (DIFC Courts)

If connection quality prevents proper cross-examination, the court can:

pause the evidence;

adjourn;

change the technology;

require another connection;

require physical attendance;

or give other procedural directions.

22. Foreign Sovereignty and Comity

This is one of the most important issues in genuinely cross-border testimony.

Suppose:

UAE/DIFC court proceedings
↓
witness physically located in India
↓
witness gives evidence live by video
↓
UAE court receives testimony.

The question arises whether the UAE/DIFC court is effectively exercising judicial authority inside another sovereign state.

The DIFC jurisprudence recognizes the importance of this issue.

In Union Bank, the court expressly acknowledged the respect owed to foreign sovereignty but nevertheless treated the admissibility of the testimony before the DIFC Court as principally a procedural question for the forum. (DIFC Courts)

This creates a practical rule:

Before arranging foreign-based video testimony, investigate the law of the country where the witness will physically sit.

23. Mutual Legal Assistance

Video testimony should also be distinguished from formal judicial assistance.

There may be a major difference between:

Voluntary testimony

A willing witness voluntarily appears by video.

Compelled evidence

A witness is unwilling and must legally be compelled to testify or produce documents.

The second situation may require:

letters of request;

judicial assistance;

treaty mechanisms;

diplomatic channels;

local court assistance.

The distinction was specifically discussed in Union Bank, where the court considered the UAE-India Mutual Legal Assistance framework and concluded that it did not necessarily govern voluntary live testimony in the circumstances before it. (DIFC Courts)

24. Admissibility Versus Weight

This distinction should be kept separate.

Admissibility

Can the testimony legally be received?

Weight

How persuasive is the testimony after it has been received?

A court might therefore conclude:

"The witness may testify by video."

but later decide:

"The evidence deserves limited weight."

Factors affecting weight can include:

poor connection;

inability to observe the witness clearly;

inconsistent testimony;

interpreter difficulties;

inability to verify documents;

apparent coaching;

witness credibility;

contradictions with contemporaneous documents.

25. Cross-Border Expert Evidence

Video testimony is also particularly useful for experts.

A UAE dispute may involve:

foreign accountants;

valuation experts;

technology experts;

engineers;

financial experts;

foreign-law experts.

The DIFC procedural materials expressly contemplate experts giving evidence through video links. (DIFC Courts)

However, the court retains discretion to require physical attendance where the complexity of the evidence or fairness considerations make remote evidence inappropriate.

26. Remote Testimony and Fair Trial Rights

The court should ensure that remote testimony does not create an unfair advantage.

Relevant questions include:

Can both sides hear the witness?

Can the witness hear counsel?

Can documents be shown efficiently?

Can the opposing party cross-examine?

Is an interpreter available?

Can the judge observe the witness adequately?

Is the witness being coached?

Can the witness communicate privately with someone?

Is the technology reliable?

Does the foreign country permit the procedure?

These considerations correspond closely with the DIFC overriding-objective approach discussed in Naqid v Najam. (DIFC Courts)

27. UAE Onshore Courts Versus DIFC Courts

A crucial distinction must be maintained.

Onshore UAE Courts

The federal Evidence Law governs evidence generally, including testimony and electronic evidence. (UAE Legislation)

The Civil Procedure Code governs court procedure. (UAE Legislation)

The precise procedural mechanism for a particular remote witness should therefore be checked against the applicable court rules and judicial directions.

DIFC Courts

The rules are considerably more explicit:

RDC 29.14 permits video-link evidence;

Schedule B to Part 23 provides a detailed video-conferencing protocol;

the Virtual Hearing Protocol regulates remote proceedings;

Article 8 of the DIFC Courts legislation expressly addresses testimony through video link and other electronic means. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore, DIFC authorities should not automatically be treated as identical to onshore UAE evidentiary law.

28. Practical Admissibility Test

For a cross-border witness, the court can effectively be expected to consider the following sequence:

Step 1 — Competence

Is the person legally competent to testify?

Step 2 — Relevance

Is the testimony relevant to an issue requiring proof?

Step 3 — Procedural permission

Has the court authorized video testimony?

Step 4 — Foreign jurisdiction

Does the witness's physical location create a legal or sovereignty problem?

Step 5 — Oath

Can the witness properly swear or affirm?

Step 6 — Identity

Can the witness's identity be verified?

Step 7 — Independence

Is the witness free from external coaching?

Step 8 — Cross-examination

Can the opposing party effectively cross-examine?

Step 9 — Technology

Is the video and audio sufficiently reliable?

Step 10 — Weight

What evidential weight should ultimately be given?

29. Recommended Procedural Application

A party seeking to use an overseas witness should normally prepare:

1. Witness statement

Clearly identifying the evidence.

2. Location

Country and city from which the witness will testify.

3. Foreign-law analysis

Whether local authorization is necessary.

4. Oath arrangements

How the oath or affirmation will be administered.

5. Identity verification

Passport or other appropriate identification where directed.

6. Technical protocol

Camera, microphone, screen and connectivity.

7. Remote-room arrangements

Confirmation concerning who will be present.

8. Interpreter arrangements

If required.

9. Document arrangements

Digital bundle and permitted documents.

10. Cross-examination plan

Ensuring both parties have equal access to the witness.

30. Common Grounds for Challenging Video Testimony

A party opposing remote evidence may argue:

A. Foreign-law violation

The witness is giving evidence in a country whose law prohibits or regulates such testimony.

B. Lack of judicial permission

The witness began giving evidence remotely without an appropriate court order.

C. Inability to cross-examine

Poor technology makes meaningful questioning impossible.

D. Witness coaching

Another person is present or communicating with the witness.

E. Authentication problem

The court cannot adequately establish the identity of the witness.

F. Oath problem

The proposed oath/affirmation procedure is defective.

G. Procedural prejudice

Remote testimony creates an unequal advantage.

H. Reliability

The technology materially interferes with the court's ability to evaluate evidence.

Importantly, Union Bank demonstrates that an objection based solely on the absence of foreign permission does not necessarily result in exclusion before the DIFC Court. (DIFC Courts)

31. Important Principle from Naqid

Naqid v Najam is particularly useful because it prevents the opposite assumption—that video testimony is automatically available whenever it is convenient.

The court considered:

expense;

proportionality;

complexity;

importance of the case;

financial circumstances;

fairness;

efficient use of judicial resources.

It ultimately refused the application on the evidence presented. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore:

Video testimony is a judicially controlled procedural facility, not an unconditional procedural right.

32. Overall Legal Position

The UAE's approach can be summarized as follows:

Cross-border location
↓
does not automatically make testimony inadmissible

Video testimony
↓
requires appropriate judicial authorization/direction where required

Foreign law
↓
must be investigated, especially regarding sovereignty and compelled evidence

Oath/affirmation
↓
must be appropriately administered, with special flexibility for foreign witnesses

Technical safeguards
↓
must preserve effective testimony and cross-examination

Witness independence
↓
must be protected against coaching or unauthorized assistance

Final assessment
↓
court determines admissibility and then the appropriate evidential weight

33. Conclusion

UAE cross-border video testimony law is best understood as a controlled procedural mechanism rather than a simple technological convenience.

The DIFC framework is particularly developed: RDC 29.14 expressly permits witness evidence through video link, while the Video-Conferencing Protocol establishes safeguards concerning the remote location, witness identification, oath, examination, cross-examination and technical arrangements. (DIFC Courts)

The leading DIFC authorities demonstrate the balance:

Gabriel Ltd v Giacobbe demonstrates that overseas testimony can be authorized.

SPX Middle East v Judi for Food Industries demonstrates judicial case-management control.

Union Bank of India v Velocity Industries establishes the important distinction between foreign-law concerns and the forum court's procedural control.

Naqid v Najam demonstrates that permission remains discretionary and depends upon fairness, proportionality and the circumstances of the case.

Phillips v Symes and Carlson v Townsend, both referenced in the DIFC procedural materials, provide additional guidance concerning remote expert evidence. (DIFC Courts)

Accordingly, in a genuine UAE cross-border dispute, the safest approach is to obtain advance judicial directions, investigate the law of the witness's physical location, establish a controlled video environment, preserve effective cross-examination, and address oath, identity, interpretation and document-handling issues before the hearing.