The UAE’s new civil law does not grant automatic financial independence at 15, ensuring minors remain protected and financially supervised until they reach full legal maturity and responsibility.
Why Age 15 Doesn’t Mean Financial Independence in the UAE
While much of the public discussion around the UAE’s updated legal framework has centred on reducing the age of majority to 18, the revised Civil Transactions Law also introduces an important and more subtle change affecting younger minors.
Under the new provisions, individuals aged 15 and above may apply to the courts for permission to manage certain financial assets. This marks a significant departure from the previous position, which required individuals to reach 18 Hijri years before any such authority could be considered. However, legal specialists caution that this amendment should not be interpreted as granting automatic financial independence to minors once they reach 15.
Rather than conferring full legal capacity, the law establishes a structured and closely monitored legal mechanism. Through this process, courts may authorise limited financial control where doing so demonstrably serves the minor’s best interests. The emphasis remains on protection, supervision, and judicial oversight.
Byron James, a partner at Expatriate Law, explains that the provision operates as a narrowly defined exception to the general rules governing legal capacity. “This change does not mean that a 15-year-old suddenly becomes financially independent,” he said. “Instead, it provides a carefully supervised route for early financial responsibility in situations where it is clearly justified.”
According to James, any authority granted by the court would be specific rather than universal. Judges are expected to evaluate applications individually, taking into account factors such as the minor’s maturity, financial understanding, and the nature of the assets involved. The court may also limit the scope of the authorisation, its duration, or the types of transactions permitted.
In this framework, parents or guardians continue to play an important role, though their responsibilities may shift. “They are not removed from the picture,” James noted. “Their role becomes supervisory rather than controlling, with the court maintaining ultimate oversight.”
This legal mechanism is designed to address practical realities, particularly in cases involving inherited property, business interests, or investment structures that require active management. Without such flexibility, assets may stagnate or suffer losses if guardians are unable to act effectively on the minor’s behalf. At the same time, the safeguards built into the system aim to prevent premature or ill-advised decision-making.
Legal professionals emphasise that age alone will not determine whether a minor is granted financial authority. Instead, courts will focus on necessity and protection. Ahmed Al Mazrouei, a UAE-based civil lawyer, said judges are unlikely to approve applications unless there is a compelling reason.
“The court will want clear evidence that direct involvement by the minor is necessary,” Al Mazrouei explained. “This could include situations such as managing an inheritance that requires active oversight, holding shares in a business, or dealing with structured investments that cannot reasonably be handled by a guardian alone.”
He added that the test will not be based on the minor’s desire for control, but on whether granting such authority genuinely serves their interests better than existing arrangements. Where approval is granted, courts are expected to impose conditions, such as regular reporting obligations or restrictions on certain categories of transactions.
Safeguards remain a central feature of the new approach. Experts stress that parental authority is not eliminated, nor is the court’s role reduced once permission is granted. On the contrary, judicial supervision continues throughout the period of authorisation.
James highlighted that the court retains the power to revoke or amend its approval if circumstances change or if the arrangement no longer benefits the minor. “This ongoing oversight is essential,” he said. “It helps protect against misuse, external pressure, or exposure to financial risks that a young person may not yet fully appreciate.”
Such protections are particularly important in cases involving high-value assets or complex financial structures, where the consequences of poor decisions can be long-lasting.
Sara Al Hammadi, another legal expert, described the amendment as a practical response to real-life challenges rather than a broad empowerment of minors. “This provision is designed to deal with specific situations,” she said. “It recognises that some minors are placed in circumstances—such as inheriting assets or participating in family enterprises—where limited financial authority may be necessary.”
According to Al Hammadi, the involvement of the courts ensures that decisions remain aligned with long-term financial wellbeing rather than short-term opportunities or external influence. “This is not about unrestricted access or control,” she said. “It is about giving judges the flexibility to respond thoughtfully to complex situations, while keeping protection at the core of the legal framework.”
Overall, the revised law reflects a balanced approach. It introduces flexibility where rigid rules previously existed, while maintaining strong safeguards to protect minors. Financial independence at 15 remains the exception rather than the rule, granted only under careful judicial supervision and only when it clearly serves the minor’s best interests.
