Introduction
Cheque disputes remain one of the most frequently litigated issues before the Dubai courts, particularly in commercial transactions where cheques are used as security instruments. As the UAE continues to modernise its payment systems, the courts are increasingly called upon to determine whether a cheque has been forged, misused, or issued in breach of trust. A recent judgment of the Dubai Court of Cassation provides important guidance on the evidentiary standards applicable to forgery claims and clarifies the legal effect of blank‑signed cheques delivered voluntarily. The decision reinforces long‑standing principles of cheque law while offering clarity for businesses, individuals, and financial institutions navigating cheque‑related disputes.
The Legal Presumption Attached to Cheques
Under UAE law, a cheque carries a strong presumption of validity. When a party presents a cheque for enforcement, the law assumes that the signature is genuine and that the cheque was issued for a legitimate underlying obligation. This presumption places a significant burden on the party alleging forgery or misuse. To rebut the presumption, the claimant must provide convincing evidence that the cheque was altered, completed without authority, or used in a manner inconsistent with the purpose for which it was delivered.
In the dispute brought before the Dubai Court of Cassation, the claimant sought to suspend execution proceedings related to a cheque and challenged the authenticity of the instrument. The cheque had been drawn on a commercial bank, voluntarily signed in blank, and later completed by the opposing party. The claimant argued that the cheque had been misused and requested that it be referred to the forensic laboratory for handwriting comparison.
Blank‑Signed Cheques and Breach of Trust Allegations
Blank‑signed cheques are not uncommon in commercial dealings, particularly where parties rely on trust or longstanding business relationships. However, the voluntary delivery of a blank‑signed cheque carries legal consequences. When a person signs a cheque and hands it over without completing the details, the law presumes that they have authorised the recipient to fill in the missing information in accordance with the underlying agreement.
The Court of Cassation reaffirmed this principle. The mere fact that a cheque was completed by someone other than the signatory does not, by itself, constitute forgery. To succeed in a forgery challenge, the claimant must demonstrate that the cheque was filled in contrary to the agreed purpose or that the recipient acted in breach of trust. Without such evidence, the admitted signature is sufficient to uphold the cheque’s enforceability.
The Role of Forensic Evidence in Cheque Disputes
Parties often request that disputed cheques be referred to forensic laboratories for handwriting analysis. While the courts may grant such requests, they do so only when there is a credible basis for alleging forgery. The Court of Cassation emphasised that forensic examination is not automatic. A party must first present prima facie evidence suggesting that the cheque was altered or misused.
In this case, the claimant failed to provide any such evidence. The signature was admitted, and there was no proof of fraud, coercion, or breach of trust. As a result, the Court found no justification for halting execution proceedings or referring the cheque for forensic analysis.
Execution Proceedings and the Limits of Substantive Challenges
Execution proceedings in cheque cases are designed to be swift and efficient. The courts generally do not suspend execution unless the claimant presents strong evidence that the cheque is invalid or that enforcement would cause irreparable harm. The Court of Cassation reiterated that execution cannot be halted merely because a party raises a forgery allegation without supporting evidence.
The claimant’s attempt to suspend execution and cancel associated measures was therefore rejected. The Court held that the legal presumptions attached to the cheque remained intact and that the claimant had not met the burden required to challenge its validity.
Implications for Businesses and Individuals
This judgment carries several important lessons for parties involved in commercial transactions:
- Signing a cheque in blank is legally risky, as the courts presume that the recipient is authorised to complete it.
- Forgery claims require strong, credible evidence, not mere allegations.
- Execution proceedings will not be suspended lightly, especially where the signature is admitted.
- Breach of trust must be proven, not assumed, even when the cheque was completed by another party.
Businesses should ensure that cheques are issued with clear documentation and avoid delivering blank‑signed instruments unless absolutely necessary. Individuals should be aware that once a cheque is voluntarily handed over, the courts will treat it as a binding financial commitment unless compelling evidence proves otherwise.
Conclusion
The Dubai Court of Cassation’s decision (in DCC 147/2026) reinforces the robust legal framework governing cheque enforcement in the UAE. By upholding the presumption of validity and clarifying the evidentiary burden in forgery disputes, the Court has provided much‑needed certainty for commercial actors. The ruling serves as a reminder that cheques remain powerful legal instruments and that parties must exercise caution, diligence, and proper documentation when issuing or receiving them.
Our team at Ayesha Al Dhaheri Advocates and Legal Consultants assists clients with cheque disputes, execution proceedings, fraud allegations, and commercial litigation. We provide clear guidance, strategic advice, and strong representation to protect your rights and resolve financial disputes efficiently and effectively.