Civil Law and UAE: Media Access to Court Proceedings

1. Introduction

Media access to court proceedings concerns the extent to which journalists, newspapers, television organisations, online media and other members of the public may:

• attend court hearings;
• observe judicial proceedings;
• obtain judgments and orders;
• access court records;
• report what occurs in court;
• reproduce information from public judgments;
• report the identity of parties and witnesses;
• obtain transcripts or recordings where permitted.

In the UAE, there is no single uniform rule applicable to every court and every proceeding. The position depends significantly on the judicial forum.

The distinction between mainland UAE courts, DIFC Courts and ADGM Courts is therefore essential.

The DIFC provides particularly clear jurisprudence on open justice, public hearings, media reporting and confidentiality. Under the current DIFC framework, Article 8A of the 2025 DIFC Courts Law establishes that DIFC Court hearings are open to the public and judgments are publicly announced unless the law, court rules or the Court provide otherwise.

2. Meaning of Open Justice

The principle of open justice means that judicial proceedings should ordinarily be capable of being observed and scrutinised by the public.

It serves several purposes:

1. maintaining confidence in courts;
2. promoting judicial accountability;
3. allowing public scrutiny;
4. discouraging improper judicial conduct;
5. improving transparency;
6. enabling accurate reporting of judicial proceedings.

In Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) Ltd v New Medical Centre Trading LLC & Others [2020] DIFC CFI 036, the DIFC Court expressly described open justice as a fundamental principle and stated that it includes the public's presence at hearings and the media's right to report what occurs in open court.

Thus:

Media access is an important practical component of open justice, but it is not an unrestricted right to publish everything connected with a case.

3. Public Hearing Is the General Rule in the DIFC

The DIFC Rules provide a clear starting point.

Rule 35.2 states:

The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public.

However, Rule 35.4 permits private hearings in specified circumstances, including:

• national security;
• confidential information;
• personal financial information;
• protection of children or patients;
• certain without-notice applications;
• trusts and estates;
• where the interests of justice require privacy. 

Therefore:

Public hearing = general rule

Private hearing = exception

4. Media and Members of the Public

The DIFC Courts expressly state that hearings in public cases are open to both the public and the media.

This means that a journalist does not ordinarily need to be a party to litigation merely to attend a public hearing.

However, attendance should be distinguished from:

• unrestricted access to every document;
• recording the hearing;
• photographing participants;
• broadcasting proceedings;
• publishing confidential material.

Those matters are separately regulated.

5. Media Access to Court Documents

Public access to hearings does not automatically mean unrestricted access to the entire court file.

Under DIFC Rule 6.10, a non-party may generally obtain:

• a statement of case, subject to the rule's conditions; and
• a judgment or order given or made in public. 

Other documents may require permission of the Court.

The Court may also:

• restrict access;
• restrict categories of persons obtaining documents;
• require redaction;
• impose other protective conditions. 

Consequently:

Open court proceedings do not mean an unrestricted right to inspect every piece of evidence filed in the case.

6. Access to Judgments

Judgments are particularly important for media reporting.

Under DIFC Rule 35.11, when a hearing is public, members of the public may obtain a transcript of a judgment or a copy of an order, subject to the applicable fee.

Rule 35.89 further provides that approved judgments are made available to:

• parties;
• law reporters;
• other persons seeking a copy.

This creates a substantial degree of transparency in judicial decision-making.

7. Confidential Hearings

The Court may order that all or part of a hearing be conducted privately.

Rule 35.4 recognises several grounds, including:

National security

Where publicity could create a national-security problem.

Confidential information

Where disclosure could damage legitimate confidentiality.

Children and patients

Where privacy is required to protect vulnerable persons.

Without-notice applications

Certain urgent applications may initially be heard privately.

Interests of justice

The Court retains a residual power where privacy is necessary in the interests of justice.

8. Protection of Identity

The Court may also order that the identity of a party or witness should not be disclosed.

Rule 35.5 allows such an order where the Court considers non-disclosure necessary to protect the interests of the party or witness.

This creates an important distinction:

Public hearing ≠ compulsory public identification of every participant.

A proceeding can be open while particular identities are protected.

9. Recording of Proceedings

Media access also has to be distinguished from recording.

DIFC Rule 35.98 provides that hearings are tape-recorded unless the Judge directs otherwise.

But Rule 35.99 provides that:

No party or member of the public may use unofficial recording equipment without permission of the Court.

Unauthorised recording can constitute contempt of court.

The rules further regulate the use and publication of official recordings. Audio and video recordings are normally provided for transcription or private use and cannot simply be published or broadcast without express authorisation.

Therefore:

Journalist may attend ≠ journalist may freely record.

10. Reporting Open Court Proceedings

The central principle is that where proceedings are genuinely public, the media can generally report what takes place in open court.

This principle was directly considered in:

Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) Ltd v New Medical Centre Trading LLC & Others [2020] DIFC CFI 036

The defendant sought restrictions partly because of concern that publicity would lead to further claims.

The Court rejected the application and explained that open justice includes the media's ability to report proceedings occurring in open court.

The Court emphasised that restrictions on open justice should be exceptional and justified by clear evidence.

Principle

Potential embarrassment, reputational harm or increased public awareness is ordinarily insufficient by itself to justify closing otherwise public proceedings.

11. Case Law 1 — Credit Europe Bank v NMC

Credit Europe Bank (Dubai) Ltd v New Medical Centre Trading LLC & Others [2020] DIFC CFI 036

This is one of the most important UAE authorities on the subject.

Facts relevant to media access

The applicants sought restrictions on public awareness and publicity surrounding the proceedings.

Decision

The DIFC Court reaffirmed:

• open justice;
• public hearings;
• media reporting;
• exceptional nature of restrictions.

The Court specifically recognised that open justice serves:

• public confidence;
• transparency;
• accountability;
• accurate public understanding of judicial proceedings. 

Importance

This case establishes the basic proposition:

Media reporting is an element of open justice rather than an incidental privilege.

12. Case Law 2 — KPMG LLP v DFSA

KPMG LLP v Dubai Financial Services Authority & Milind Ajit Navalkar v DFSA [2022] DIFC CFI 008 & 007

This case dealt extensively with the relationship between:

• open justice;
• confidentiality;
• regulatory proceedings;
• publication;
• reputational harm.

The Court explained that open justice is an essential characteristic of judicial proceedings, although confidentiality can be protected where genuinely necessary for the proper administration of justice.

The Court rejected the proposition that reputational damage automatically justifies private proceedings.

Principle

Reputational harm is relevant but does not by itself defeat the presumption of openness.

This is particularly important for media reporting of financial and regulatory disputes.

13. Case Law 3 — Al Ramz Capital LLC v DFSA

Al Ramz Capital LLC v Dubai Financial Services Authority [2024] DIFC CFI 087

This case considered regulatory transparency and publication in the context of the Financial Markets Tribunal.

The Court identified a strong presumption favouring transparency and noted that departure from an open-justice model should be exceptional. The applicable regulatory legislation also required public hearings and publication subject to statutory exceptions.

Principle

Where legislation expressly establishes:

public hearings + publication

the party seeking restriction must satisfy the statutory requirements for confidentiality or non-publication.

Importance

This is highly relevant to media access to financial-regulatory proceedings.

14. Case Law 4 — Arqaam Capital v DFSA

Dubai Financial Services Authority v Arqaam Capital [2012] DIFC CFI 006

This litigation concerned regulatory proceedings involving Arqaam Capital and the Financial Markets Tribunal.

The dispute involved the relationship between:

• public regulatory proceedings;
• confidentiality;
• commercial information;
• publication.

The case demonstrates that confidentiality is not simply determined by a party asserting that information is commercially sensitive. The court must apply the relevant statutory and procedural framework.

Principle

Commercial sensitivity must be assessed against the competing principle of regulatory transparency.

This is particularly relevant to financial-media reporting.

15. Case Law 5 — Taaleem v National Bonds Corporation

Taaleem PJSC v National Bonds Corporation & Another [2010] DIFC CFI 014

This case involved an application concerning confidentiality and public access in a significant commercial dispute.

The Court dealt with the duration and scope of confidentiality protection rather than treating confidentiality as necessarily permanent.

Principle

A confidentiality order may be:

• limited in scope;
• limited in time;
• reviewed;
• allowed to expire when the justification for secrecy disappears.

This is important because:

A temporary need for confidentiality does not necessarily justify permanent media exclusion.

16. Case Law 6 — Arif Naqvi v DFSA

Arif Naqvi v Dubai Financial Services Authority [2021] DIFC CFI 060

This case involved an application to keep judicial-review proceedings private because of concerns about publicity and potential effects on parallel proceedings abroad.

The Court rejected the attempt to displace the normal presumption of open proceedings.

The argument that publicity could harm reputation or influence foreign proceedings was not sufficient on the evidence to justify closing the proceedings.

Principle

Speculative consequences of media publicity are generally insufficient to overcome the presumption of open justice.

This is an important authority concerning the interaction between:

• media reporting;
• reputation;
• foreign proceedings;
• open justice.

17. Case Law 7 — Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC

Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others [2025] DIFC DEC 001

This Digital Economy Court decision considered the public nature of DIFC proceedings under the current 2025 Court Law.

The Court referred to the strong presumption that proceedings should be public and noted the new Article 8A framework under the DIFC Courts Law 2025, under which hearings are open and judgments publicly announced unless the law, rules or Court provide otherwise.

Importance

This confirms that open justice continues into the digital-asset and technology-dispute environment.

18. Case Law 8 — Al Ramz and the Regulatory Transparency Principle

The significance of Al Ramz Capital extends beyond financial regulation.

The Court recognised that the statutory framework required:

• fairness;
• transparency;
• efficiency;
• public hearings;
• publication subject to specific exceptions. 

This demonstrates that transparency can be a legislative objective, not merely a common-law concept.

19. Arbitration: Different Rules Apply

An important qualification is arbitration.

Arbitration is normally private and confidential to a greater extent than ordinary court litigation.

DIFC Rule 43.41 provides that arbitral proceedings under the DIFC Arbitration Law are generally heard otherwise than in open court, although the Court can order an open hearing.

Rule 43.42 regulates publication of information from closed arbitral proceedings.

Generally, publication requires:

• agreement of the parties; or
• satisfaction that publication would not reveal matters that a party reasonably wishes to keep confidential.

However, where a judgment from closed proceedings has major legal interest, the Court can permit publication in law reports or professional publications, subject to appropriate protections.

Therefore:

Ordinary court litigation

Publicity is generally the starting point.

Arbitration

Privacy is generally the starting point.

20. Court Documents Versus Evidence

Another important distinction:

Publicly accessible

Potentially:

• statement of case;
• judgment;
• order;
• public hearing.

Potentially restricted

May include:

• confidential business documents;
• personal financial information;
• trade secrets;
• sensitive technical information;
• documents covered by protective orders.

Rule 6.12 requires permission for a non-party seeking many categories of documents beyond the basic public-record materials.

21. Commercial Confidentiality

A commercial dispute may contain:

• trade secrets;
• customer information;
• financial statements;
• pricing arrangements;
• proprietary technology;
• confidential contracts.

The existence of such material does not necessarily mean that the entire case must be private.

The Court may instead use narrower measures such as:

• redaction;
• confidentiality rings;
• restricted access;
• private portions of hearings;
• anonymity;
• confidentiality directions.

The DIFC's Digital Economy Court guidance specifically contemplates confidentiality rings, independent experts and redaction for commercially or technically confidential material.

22. Public Interest Versus Private Interests

Media access requires balancing two broad interests.

Public interest

• transparency;
• accountability;
• confidence in courts;
• knowledge of judicial decisions;
• accurate reporting.

Private interests

• personal privacy;
• national security;
• trade secrets;
• confidential financial information;
• protection of children;
• protection of vulnerable persons;
• fair-trial concerns.

The legal question is therefore not:

“Is publicity uncomfortable?”

but rather:

“Is there a legally sufficient reason to depart from the normal principle of open justice?”

23. Reputation and Media Coverage

A party may argue:

“Media reporting will damage my reputation.”

That concern can be relevant but is generally not sufficient by itself to justify closing proceedings.

Credit Europe Bank and KPMG are particularly useful here.

The DIFC jurisprudence treats reputational consequences as a potential consequence of public justice rather than automatically as a reason to suppress proceedings.

24. Fair Trial and Media Access

Media publicity can sometimes create a genuine fair-trial concern.

Examples could include:

• extensive prejudicial publicity;
• vulnerable witnesses;
• confidential evidence;
• parallel criminal proceedings;
• risk of witness intimidation;
• national-security concerns.

However, the party seeking restriction generally needs to establish a legally sufficient basis.

In Arif Naqvi v DFSA, the Court did not accept speculative concerns about the impact of publicity on foreign proceedings as sufficient to overcome the normal public character of the proceedings.

25. Media Access and Witness Protection

The Court can protect witnesses where necessary.

Rule 35.5 permits non-disclosure of a party or witness identity where the Court considers it necessary to protect that person's interests.

Therefore, the court can adopt a graduated approach:

Open hearing

↓

Restricted identity

↓

Redacted documents

↓

Private evidence

↓

Entirely private hearing

The appropriate level depends upon the circumstances.

26. Digital Hearings and Media Access

Modern UAE courts increasingly use:

• video hearings;
• electronic filing;
• electronic bundles;
• digital judgments.

The DIFC Courts have operated extensive virtual and paperless processes, including virtual hearings and electronic bundles.

But digital accessibility does not automatically mean:

“Everyone may record or broadcast the hearing.”

The existing restrictions on recording and publication continue to matter.

27. Media Access to Digital-Evidence Cases

Digital cases may involve particularly sensitive information:

• cryptocurrency wallets;
• private keys;
• source code;
• algorithms;
• databases;
• cybersecurity information;
• personal data.

Consequently, a public hearing may coexist with:

• redacted documents;
• confidentiality rings;
• restricted evidence;
• private portions of hearings.

The DIFC Digital Economy Court's case-management guidance expressly contemplates confidentiality protections in technologically complex proceedings.

28. Mainland UAE Courts

The mainland UAE position requires greater care because the procedural framework and court practice differ from the DIFC model.

It would be incorrect to assume that:

DIFC open-justice jurisprudence automatically governs every mainland UAE court.

The mainland system is governed primarily by federal legislation and the applicable judicial procedures.

In particular, questions concerning:

• public attendance;
• confidentiality;
• publication;
• personal-data protection;
• court records;
• recording;
• media conduct

must be considered under the applicable federal procedural and other legislation.

Therefore, DIFC decisions should be identified as persuasive/special-jurisdiction authorities, rather than automatically treated as mainland precedents.

29. UAE Civil Law and Privacy

Media access also interacts with broader civil-law principles.

Civil liability can arise where publication unlawfully causes harm to:

• reputation;
• privacy;
• dignity;
• personal interests.

Therefore, the fact that information originated from a court proceeding does not necessarily mean that every subsequent use of that information is immune from all legal restrictions.

The distinction is:

Right to report a public proceeding

versus

unlimited right to republish every piece of personal information for every purpose.

These are not necessarily the same question.

30. Confidentiality Orders

A court may use targeted confidentiality mechanisms rather than closing the whole proceeding.

Possible measures include:

1. Redaction

Sensitive passages removed.

2. Anonymisation

Names replaced with initials or pseudonyms.

3. Confidentiality ring

Only specified persons can access sensitive material.

4. Private hearing

Only sensitive portions are heard privately.

5. Restricted documents

Certain documents are withheld from non-parties.

6. Publication restriction

Particular information cannot be published.

This approach seeks to preserve as much openness as possible.

31. Open Justice and Proportionality

The basic philosophy is:

Use the narrowest restriction necessary to protect the legitimate interest.

For example:

If one paragraph of a 500-page document contains a trade secret, it may be disproportionate to seal the entire document.

Similarly, if one witness needs anonymity, it may not be necessary to close the entire proceeding.

This is consistent with the DIFC approach that exceptions to open justice should be properly justified and not broader than necessary.

32. Media Access to Judgment Versus Draft Judgment

A particularly important distinction exists between:

Draft judgment

Confidential before formal delivery.

Approved judgment

Public once formally handed down, subject to any applicable restriction.

DIFC Rule 35.79 prevents the parties from disclosing or using the substance of a confidential draft judgment before it is formally handed down. Breach can be treated as contempt.

Thus:

Media access to a judgment generally begins with the formally issued/public judgment, not an unreleased draft.

33. Practical Example

Suppose a major UAE corporation is sued over an alleged environmental accident.

The media wants to attend.

Question 1

Is the hearing public?

If yes, media attendance is generally permissible in a jurisdiction such as the DIFC where public hearings are the default.

Question 2

Does the case contain trade secrets?

The Court may redact or restrict those materials.

Question 3

Does the case involve a child?

The relevant hearing or evidence may be private.

Question 4

Can journalists record the hearing?

Not automatically. DIFC rules prohibit unofficial recording without court permission.

Question 5

Can the media obtain the judgment?

A judgment given publicly is generally available to non-parties under the DIFC rules.

34. Practical Media Access Framework

35. Major Case-Law Principles

36. Six Core Legal Principles for Examination

Principle 1 — Open justice is the starting point

Public hearings promote transparency and confidence in judicial administration.

Principle 2 — Media reporting is part of open justice

The Credit Europe Bank decision expressly recognised the media's role in reporting open-court proceedings.

Principle 3 — Openness is not absolute

National security, confidentiality, children, vulnerable persons and the interests of justice can justify restrictions.

Principle 4 — Reputation alone normally does not justify secrecy

The DIFC cases establish a high threshold for restricting proceedings merely because publicity may cause reputational harm.

Principle 5 — Court documents have different access rules

Public judgments and certain pleadings may be accessible, while other documents require permission or may be restricted.

Principle 6 — Recording is different from attendance

Even where a journalist can attend a public hearing, unofficial recording or broadcasting may require court permission.

37. Mainland UAE, DIFC and ADGM — Important Distinction

Do not treat a DIFC decision as automatically binding on mainland UAE courts.

38. Exam-Oriented Short Note

Media access to court proceedings in the UAE is closely connected with the principle of open justice. The strongest developed UAE jurisprudence is found in the DIFC Courts, where public hearings are the general rule and media attendance is expressly recognised.

However, openness is subject to exceptions involving:

• national security;
• confidential information;
• personal privacy;
• children and vulnerable persons;
• fair administration of justice;
• protected commercial information.

The Credit Europe Bank, KPMG, Al Ramz Capital, Taaleem, Arif Naqvi, and Techteryx decisions demonstrate the development of this principle.

The crucial distinction is:

Public access to a hearing does not create an unrestricted right to access every document, record every hearing, or publish every piece of information.

39. Conclusion

The UAE's approach to media access to court proceedings reflects a balance between open justice and legitimate confidentiality.

The DIFC provides the clearest judicial model: hearings are presumptively public, the media can attend and report public proceedings, public judgments are accessible, and restrictions require a recognised justification. At the same time, courts can protect confidential information, vulnerable persons, witnesses, national-security interests and other legitimate interests.

The most important principle from the case law is that transparency is the starting point, while secrecy is the exception. But the exception can be important where necessary to protect privacy, confidential commercial information, fair proceedings or other legally recognised interests.

For examination purposes, the formula to remember is:

Open Justice + Media Access + Public Judgments
↓
Subject to Confidentiality + Privacy + National Security + Fair Trial + Interests of Justice

That is the basic structure of media access to court proceedings under the UAE's modern civil-justice framework.