The deal is done. The cheque is not.
You found the buyer. The listing agent held the property and set the showing. The client signed Form F, the transfer happened at the trustee office, and now the commission cheques should be in the right hands. Instead, you are waiting. The other agency is saying the split was never formally agreed. Or they are claiming you brought the buyer late. Or the commission cheque was made out to them alone, and they are offering you a different number than the one you shook hands on.
This is not a rare situation. It is one of the most common payment disputes in the Dubai secondary market. It happens between professional, licensed agencies — not just bad actors. It happens because the Dubai co-brokerage system, which depends entirely on cooperation between separately licensed parties, has exactly one structural weakness: the moment before the deal is formally documented, the split agreement lives in a WhatsApp thread, a verbal understanding, or nothing at all.
This article explains where you actually stand when a split dispute starts, what the regulatory framework does and does not give you, and what professional practice looks like from the moment a shared listing is introduced to the moment every party is paid.
How the split is supposed to work
Start with the basics, because the mechanics matter.
The most common structure in Dubai is co-brokerage: the buyer pays 2% commission to their agent, the seller pays 2% commission to their agent, and each side pays their own agent directly. Both sides pay separately. When a listing agent and a buyer’s agent from different agencies close a deal together, they are not splitting a single pot — they are each collecting independently from their respective client. In the cleanest version of this, the dispute should be limited: each agent has their own Form A or Form B, their own client relationship, and their own commission cheque.
The problem arises when the deal does not split that cleanly — and many don’t. Sometimes the buyer’s side pays no separate commission because the listing agent holds both Form A (from the seller) and Form B (from the buyer), and the co-broker is working on an internal agent-to-agent (A2A) arrangement for a share of that collected fee. Sometimes there is a single commission cheque from the client, and two agencies expecting a piece of it. That is when the split agreement’s documentation — or absence of documentation — becomes the entire dispute.
When two brokers collaborate on a transaction, one representing the seller and the other the buyer, they sign Form I to confirm commission splits and cooperation terms. It ensures transparency between agencies and prevents future disputes.
Form I is the instrument that should be in place before the deal is done. When two brokers collaborate on a deal, the commission structure must be agreed upon in advance. Without a clear agent-to-agent agreement — commonly known as Form I — many agents end up in costly disputes or losing their commission entirely.
The word “commonly” is doing real work there. Too many deals in Dubai are done on a handshake, a voice note, or a chain of WhatsApp messages that everyone interprets differently once the money is on the table.
What RERA and DLD actually regulate — and what they don’t
Agents sometimes arrive at a dispute expecting the regulatory system to resolve a split disagreement automatically. That expectation needs to be adjusted.
RERA, the regulatory arm of the Dubai Land Department, does not fix commission rates by law. However, RERA plays a critical role in regulating how commission is handled: only RERA-licensed brokers and agents can legally earn commission in Dubai.
RERA expects all commission arrangements to be documented in Form A or Form B. The between-agency split, recorded in Form I, sits on top of this. RERA regulates the conduct of licensed brokers and requires proper documentation, but it does not assign splits between cooperating agencies when those splits were never written down. If your split was verbal and the other agency disputes it, RERA cannot simply look at your WhatsApp conversation and issue a ruling in your favour.
Complaints can be raised to the DLD/RERA. The Dubai Land Department regulates registered brokers and handles complaints about broker conduct — this is the route for unregistered practice, double-dipping, misrepresentation, or fee disputes with a brokerage.
The RDSC — the Rental Disputes Settlement Centre — is a separate judicial body. The Rental Dispute Settlement Centre (RDSC) is the judicial body that resolves landlord-tenant conflicts in Dubai, and it operates under the Dubai Land Department. It primarily addresses landlord-tenant matters. A commission dispute between two agencies over a sales split is not automatically within RDSC’s core jurisdiction — it is more likely to find its way through DLD’s complaints mechanism or ultimately into civil court if the parties cannot resolve it. The key point is that formal resolution takes time, costs money, and without documentary evidence, becomes highly uncertain.
If a commission dispute arises, having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute. That holds whether the complaint goes to the regulator or the courts.
What counts as written evidence
If there is no Form I, courts and adjudicating bodies in Dubai will look for any written trail. Some verbal agreements may be enforceable, but written evidence is usually much stronger. Emails, WhatsApp messages, invoices, payment records, and witness evidence may help prove the agreement and breach.
The difficulty is that WhatsApp messages, while they carry evidentiary weight, are open to interpretation. “Let’s do 50/50 on this one” in a voice note, followed by “great” from the other party, is not the same as a signed Form I countersigned by both brokerages. One is a conversation. The other is a contract.
A UAE court case — from Abu Dhabi, but instructive for the market generally — demonstrates how steeply the cards fall without proper documentation. The Abu Dhabi Commercial Court of First Instance dismissed a lawsuit filed by a real estate broker seeking AED 117,000 in commission from a property owner, ruling that no approved written brokerage contract had been registered as required by law. The broker had submitted a copy of his trade licence, WhatsApp correspondence and property ownership documents. None of it was enough. The court said property sector regulations require brokers to obtain the necessary licences and to conclude a written brokerage contract using the approved template, which must be registered. The case file contained no such registered written contract, and the court ruled the claim had no legal basis.
Holding a licence, having done the work, and even having messages in evidence was not enough. The written, registered instrument was missing. The agent lost the claim and was ordered to pay court costs.
This is not a story about a scam. It is a story about documentation. Your co-broker dispute can go exactly the same way if the split was never formalised.
Where the friction actually starts
Understanding the anatomy of a co-broker split dispute is half the battle. These disagreements don’t usually come from bad faith — they come from compressed timelines, market pressure, and the assumption that the details can be sorted later.
The listing is shared without terms
A buyer’s agent calls the listing agent at 8 a.m. about an Marina apartment. The listing agent says “bring the offer, let’s talk.” The buyer’s agent shows the property. By evening there is an offer. Form F gets drafted. Nobody wrote down the split. The listing agent’s agency holds the client’s commission cheque. The buyer’s agent expects 50%. The listing agent’s agency says it should be 30% because they managed the seller relationship through three counter-offers. Both positions have logic. Neither is documented.
In Dubai, there is no official law dictating the exact split for agent-to-agent commissions, but commonly accepted standards exist: sale transactions usually see a 50/50 split; rental transactions are usually 50/50 but sometimes negotiable depending on the effort involved; and on exclusive listings, the listing agent sometimes offers a smaller split, such as 60/40, if they have exclusive rights.
“Commonly accepted” means nothing in a dispute unless it is signed. Standards only protect you when you invoke them before the deal, not after.
The commission is collected before the split is paid
The client pays one agency. That agency receives the full cheque, issues a tax invoice, and now the co-broker is waiting for a second, internal transfer. At this point the leverage has flipped entirely. The receiving agency controls the cash. The co-broker’s only recourse is a claim — and if the split was not formalised, that claim is shaky.
Commission should always be paid by cheque made out to the brokerage, not to the individual agent personally. This is a RERA requirement and it creates a paper trail that protects both parties if a dispute arises later.
The same logic applies between agencies. The cheque going to one brokerage does not extinguish the other brokerage’s entitlement — but without documentation, proving that entitlement becomes a fight.
VAT becomes a point of contention
VAT at 5% on brokerage commission is not optional for a VAT-registered brokerage. Brokerage commission is a service, so the UAE’s 5% VAT applies to the commission amount — not the property price. When two agencies split a commission, the VAT treatment of the split payment between them needs to be handled correctly — ideally addressed in the written agreement up front. If it is not, one agency may issue a tax invoice on the gross and then remit a net amount to the other, and the second agency is left questioning whether the VAT has been accounted for correctly and whether they are entitled to claim input tax. This is a secondary argument that deepens the dispute.
The deal is off-plan
In the off-plan market, the commission dynamic is structurally different. In Dubai’s off-plan property market, the standard brokerage commission paid by buyers is 0%. The developer compensates the agent directly, allowing buyers to invest without incurring agency fees.
Law No. 8 of 2007 requires developers to establish dedicated escrow accounts for each off-plan project. All buyer payments must be deposited into these accounts, which are closely monitored by the Dubai Land Department and managed by RERA-approved trustee banks. This is the legally regulated escrow mechanism for off-plan in Dubai — it protects buyer funds, not commission. The developer-paid commission sits outside the escrow account and is paid by the developer to the introducing or co-introducing brokerage. When two agencies co-introduce a buyer to an off-plan developer, the commission dispute can turn on who is recorded as the registered introducing broker in the developer’s system, and whether both agencies were named before the client registered. If one agency is listed and the other is not, the unlisted agency has a problem that is nearly impossible to resolve after the fact.
The forms and what each one actually does
It is worth being precise about the form sequence because agents conflate them.
-
Form A is the listing mandate between the seller and the listing brokerage. Form A specifies the commission payable on successful conclusion of the sale. The Dubai market standard is 2% of the sale price plus 5% VAT on the commission, payable by the seller to the mandate-holding broker. The form should record the agreed percentage, the responsible party, the trigger event for payment, and VAT treatment.
-
Form F is the MOU — the actual sale contract. Form F is the official Memorandum of Understanding issued by the Dubai Land Department for the sale and purchase of property in Dubai. It is not a preliminary agreement or a letter of intent — it is the executed sale contract. Once signed by both parties and accompanied by the agreed deposit, Form F creates legally enforceable obligations on the buyer to complete the purchase and on the seller to transfer the property.
-
Form I is the inter-agency cooperation agreement. It is where the co-brokerage split lives. Form A, Form B, Form F, and Form I are the standard RERA forms that govern the agency relationship and commission obligations in a transaction. Form I must be signed before the deal closes. After the transfer, it is an historical artefact of what was agreed. Before the transfer, it is the only binding instrument that protects both sides.
Listings that appear without a valid Trakheesi number are non-compliant and subject to immediate removal, broker fines, and potential suspension of the brokerage’s licence. Owners who allow unregistered marketing also expose themselves to disputed commission claims and complications when the transaction reaches Form F. Trakheesi compliance is the listing entry point — if the marketing of the listing was irregular from the start, the downstream commission claim is already weaker.
What to do when a dispute has already started
This article is primarily about prevention, but disputes do start. When they do, move methodically.
Gather everything written, immediately. Every WhatsApp thread, every email, every voice note transcript, every text. Save them somewhere outside the platform — screenshots at minimum, forwarded to a secure email address. Evidence that exists on a phone can disappear when relationships break down.
Establish what was agreed and when. Did both brokerages acknowledge the split in writing at any point? A message that says “so we’re doing 50/50 right?” followed by a “yes” response is not a signed Form I, but it is evidence of an agreement. What is the timestamp relative to the deal events? A message sent after Form F was signed is weaker than one sent before.
Raise the dispute formally and in writing with the other brokerage. Not just the individual agent — the brokerage management. State the facts, attach receipts and the message trail, and say precisely what you are disputing — the amount, the entitlement, or the double charge. A formal written complaint to the management of the other agency changes the character of the conversation. Most disputes resolve at this stage because brokerage management sees the reputational and operational cost of a drawn-out fight over a split that should have been signed.
Know when to escalate. If internal resolution fails, the DLD complaints mechanism is the first formal step. If a dispute arises, RERA cannot intervene unless the agent holds a valid BRN. Both agencies need to be properly licensed for the regulatory route to be available. For commission disputes that are genuinely contested and involve material sums, legal advice is appropriate. Do not treat this stage lightly — formal proceedings take time, cost money, and outcomes are uncertain without documentation.
What not to do. Do not hold up the client’s transfer, withhold documents, or create leverage by threatening to obstruct the deal. The client has rights under Form F that are independent of your commission dispute. Obstructing a lawful transfer exposes the obstructing party to a Form F dispute claim and potential regulatory action. In most cases a broker can raise a dispute once Form F has expired without a successful transfer, or when there is a clear default and both parties cannot agree on a solution. That standard cuts both ways. Do not create the default that lands you in the dispute.
What “standard splits” actually mean in the Dubai market
Because there is no statutory rate for agent-to-agent splits in Dubai, the market has settled on conventions. Knowing them helps you negotiate up front.
Most Dubai brokerages use a 70/30 split when one agent supplies the buyer and another lists the property. That said, the shape of the work done matters. An agent who qualified a buyer over weeks, ran them through fifteen showings, and negotiated the final price has a stronger argument for a larger share than an agent who forwarded a listing link.
In sale transactions, a 50/50 split of the total commission is the most common starting point. In rental transactions, 50/50 is usual but sometimes negotiable depending on the effort involved. On exclusive listings — where the listing agent holds a proper exclusive mandate — the split dynamics shift.
The important thing is that none of these conventions mean anything without a signed agreement. Conventions are a negotiating starting point. A signed Form I is what gets paid.
Rentals: a different structure, the same documentation problem
In a rental co-brokerage deal — a landlord’s agent and a tenant’s agent sharing a deal — the mechanics differ slightly. The commission is typically 5% of the annual rent, and Ejari registration formalises the tenancy. The 5% is not written into Dubai’s tenancy law; it is the figure RERA recognises as customary and the one referenced when a commission dispute reaches the Rental Disputes Center.
For residential or commercial leasing, DLD is responsible for the systems that document rental contracts. Through the Real Estate Registration Sector, DLD develops and maintains rental systems such as Ejari and ensures that rental transactions are recorded accurately for landlords and tenants.
Ejari registration protects the tenancy. It does not protect the split agreement between co-broking agents. Unregistered contracts aren’t enforceable in court and would not protect in the event of disputes. A rental co-brokerage dispute follows exactly the same documentation logic as a sales dispute: whoever has the signed, written split agreement has the stronger position.
One specific rental friction point: post-dated cheques. In Dubai rentals, the tenant typically pays the landlord in post-dated cheques for the year, and the commission cheque sits in the same handover. When the commission cheque is collected by one agent’s brokerage and the split was verbal, the co-broker’s window to dispute narrows quickly — the cash is already in someone else’s account.
The principle that removes the friction
Every variation of the co-broker dispute described above has the same root: the split was not documented before the client paid.
The structural solution is not complex. It requires agreement on three things, all signed before the client’s money moves:
-
Who is entitled to what percentage of the commission. Not a round number agreed at the showing. A signed Form I with both brokerages named, percentages stated, and the VAT treatment addressed.
-
When payment is triggered. Is it Form F execution? DLD transfer? Both should be named if there is any ambiguity. The form should record the agreed percentage, the responsible party, the trigger event for payment, and VAT treatment.
-
How each party is paid. Ideally, each brokerage receives their share directly from the relevant client — the cleanest possible structure. Where that is not possible and one agency collects on behalf of both, the written agreement must specify the amount to be remitted and the timeline.
Negotiated splits in large or complex deals can be agreed between brokerages before the deal closes. Transparency is an obligation: agents are required under RERA rules to disclose their commission arrangement to all parties.
The moment the split is signed, most of the friction disappears. There is nothing to dispute about the percentage. The timeline is clear. If one party fails to pay, the other party has a document — not a memory.
Relying on verbal agreements, not discussing commission split until late in the process, assuming a 50/50 split without confirmation, and working with agents who refuse to sign Form I are the most common mistakes in Dubai agent-to-agent deals. Each of those mistakes is a choice. A costly one.
The agents in this market who do not wait on payments, who do not spend weeks chasing splits, who rarely find themselves in commission disputes — they are not necessarily luckier than everyone else. They agreed the terms and signed the paper before they introduced the buyer. That is the entire practice. It takes ten minutes before the deal moves and saves weeks of grief after it closes.
The goal is not a perfect system. The goal is an agreed split, in writing, signed by both brokerages, before the client’s cheque changes hands. Every party paid at the same time the deal closes — no second chase, no internal transfer pending, no waiting on someone else’s decision about how much you are owed.
That outcome is available on every co-brokerage deal in Dubai. It just requires doing the paperwork first.
