The deal is almost done, and then someone leaves
Picture this: an agent spent three weeks nurturing a buyer, ran the viewings, got the price agreed, and watched Form F get signed. Then, before the transfer happens at the DLD trustee office, the agent hands in their resignation — or gets told they are no longer needed. The commission from the buyer’s side lands weeks later. Who sees that money?
Or the opposite scenario: a listing agent puts a property on Bayut, fields calls for a month, and a co-broking agency brings the buyer across the line. The listing agent leaves the brokerage the week after Form F is signed but before the agency receives its fee. What is owed, to whom, and by whom?
These are not edge cases. Commission disputes are among the most common complaints filed with RERA. A good portion of them trace back to a single failure: nobody wrote down the split in a signed document before the client’s money moved.
Why the commission path matters before anyone asks who gets it
Before the question of entitlement even makes sense, you need to understand how commission actually flows in a Dubai deal — because it does not go straight to the agent who did the work.
When a deal closes, the total commission goes first to the brokerage. The agent then receives their split — a percentage of that commission agreed upon at the start of their employment or partnership arrangement. Splits in Dubai typically range from 50% to 70% in favour of the agent, depending on seniority, deal volume, and the specific brokerage’s compensation structure.
This matters enormously to the question in the title. The agent did not earn a right to money. The agent earned a right to a share of what the brokerage earns. Those are two different things, and conflating them is the first mistake agents make when they leave mid-deal and expect automatic payment.
In a secondary-market sale, the most common structure in Dubai is a co-brokerage arrangement: the buyer pays 2% commission to their agent, and the seller pays 2% commission to their agent. Each side pays their own agent directly. In a co-broke where two agencies are involved, a single transaction can involve a primary agent, a co-broking partner, a team leader override, a developer incentive bonus, a DLD fee deduction, and a referral fee owed to an external agency — all requiring separate calculation rules and documented payout records under RERA guidelines.
On the off-plan side, the structure is different again. Unlike the secondary market — where the buyer often pays around 2% — off-plan buyers generally do not incur brokerage fees. Instead, the commission is built into the developer’s marketing and sales structure and paid to the authorised brokerage handling the transaction. The developer holds the commission until they choose to release it, which means the timeline between booking and payment is entirely in the developer’s hands. Buyer instalments go into the project’s regulated escrow account — the escrow account law applies to all real estate developers working in Dubai and those who sell units off-plan, and, in return, receive payments from purchasers or investors as well as from the financiers of the project — but the agent’s commission is a separate line paid by the developer from its own operating structure. An agent who leaves their brokerage before that developer payment arrives is chasing money that has not yet come in the door.
The forms that determine who is in the deal
Dubai’s regulatory framework gives every serious agent a clear paper trail to protect their position — but only if they use it.
Commission becomes legally payable only once a signed representation is in place and the transaction the agent was engaged to complete actually goes ahead. In Dubai, that representation is documented on a RERA form generated through the Trakheesi permit system, and the form — not a viewing or a phone call — is what establishes the agent’s entitlement to a fee.
For co-broking deals, the critical document is Form I. Signing Form I is mandatory when agents are working in collaboration. When the seller’s listed agent and buyer’s agent work in collaboration for any property, they are supposed to sign Form I. This form is an agreement between RERA-certified agents that secures the brokers’ clients, their listings, and states their commission split. Form I binds the two agents in a professional relationship.
Form I is an agent-to-agent collaboration agreement signed by two RERA-certified brokers from different agencies who are working together on the same property transaction. It defines the commission split, protects each agent’s client relationship, and ensures that neither broker can be bypassed or excluded from the deal without consequences.
Form F — the MOU — layers on another reference point. Form F lists the terms and conditions, rate, commission split for the buyer’s and seller’s agents, and other vital details of the property. A commission split that appears on a signed Form F is far harder for any party to walk back than one that was agreed in a WhatsApp chat.
In fast-moving markets like Dubai, agents sometimes proceed on trust or a phone call agreement when time is short. This almost always creates problems if the deal becomes complicated. The agent who leaves mid-deal without a signed Form I is the one who discovers that fact first.
The three scenarios where agents actually leave mid-deal
Scenario 1: The agent leaves the brokerage voluntarily
An agent resigns after Form F is signed but before the DLD transfer and the commission payment. The brokerage gets paid. Does the former agent?
The answer is: it depends entirely on the employment contract, and if that contract is silent on the point, the dispute becomes a labour matter — not a RERA matter. The case is not clear-cut if there is no written proof that the company will honour the commission after the agent has left their employment. Leaving before the transaction was concluded could possibly weaken the case.
Under standard RERA practice, commission is payable only upon successful transfer. So if the agent left before the transfer — even if they did the bulk of the legwork — the brokerage can argue that the deal was not technically closed under that agent’s tenure. Whether or not that argument succeeds depends on what the employment contract says and, failing clarity there, what a labour tribunal decides.
The practical reality: RERA’s jurisdiction covers licensed agents and brokerage conduct in the transaction. The internal split between an agent and their brokerage on the agent’s own salary or commission structure is a matter for the labour system if it ends in a dispute. If it becomes a dispute, the appropriate venue is the labour department. RERA will not adjudicate on internal employment terms.
Scenario 2: The agent is let go by the brokerage before the deal closes
An agent gets terminated — or their role is handed to a manager — while a deal they originated is still live. This is the situation where the question of “who introduced the client” becomes central. If the agent can prove introduction and ongoing effort through documented correspondence, a signed Form B between client and brokerage naming that agent, or internal emails, their position in a labour claim is stronger. But again, this sits outside RERA’s reach and inside the labour framework unless there is a specific RERA-registered commission agreement in place that names the agent individually.
UAE law does not specifically refer to concepts of “post-termination commission” or “pre-termination commission,” and entitlement to commission in respect of specific transactions is determined by reference to the provisions of the relevant commercial agency agreement itself. The UAE Commercial Transactions Law does contain a provision which states that the agent shall be entitled to remuneration for transactions concluded, or for those whose non-conclusion is due to the principal’s act, unless the contract stipulates otherwise.
The emphasis there is on “unless the contract stipulates otherwise.” Employment contracts in Dubai real estate brokerages frequently do stipulate otherwise — including clauses that require the agent to be employed at the time of commission receipt as a condition of receiving it. If that clause is in your contract and you signed it, you are on the back foot the moment you leave.
Scenario 3: An external co-broking agent’s deal closes, but their agency doesn’t pay them
This is the cleanest version of the problem because the frame is an inter-agency split, not an employment dispute. If two licensed agencies have a signed Form I in place, the agency receiving the commission owes the agreed share to the other agency. That obligation is between brokerages, not between individual agents. The individual agent still has to get their share from their own brokerage. Their recourse is internal to their own agency’s commission structure.
Commission disputes are fact-specific — who introduced whom, what was signed, and what was paid. When an agent is asking why their co-broke share hasn’t arrived, the first question is always: does a signed Form I exist, and does it name the correct brokerage? If it does, the receiving brokerage is obligated to pay the agreed split. If it does not, the agent is pursuing money on the basis of a verbal handshake.
Where proof breaks down — and where disputes actually start
Most commission disputes do not begin with bad intentions. They begin with a gap between what was assumed and what was written down. Here is where the gaps cluster.
The split was agreed verbally. Verbal agreements on commission are not enforceable under RERA dispute resolution. A phone call where two agents agreed a 50/50 split is evidence of exactly nothing once one party denies it. The agent who did not send a confirmation email and did not push for a Form I is the agent who ends up arguing from memory.
The Form I was signed late — or never. Without Form I, Agent A risks Agent B approaching the buyer directly and cutting them out of the commission. Equally, Agent B risks Agent A’s buyer going back to the seller independently and removing the listing agent from the deal. The form creates mutual accountability and makes the commission split legally enforceable. When an agent leaves mid-deal, the first thing the remaining party checks is whether Form I was signed. If it was not, they have a clear argument that no formal co-broking arrangement existed.
The employment contract is silent on mid-deal commission. Most agents sign an employment contract at the start and never scrutinise the commission clause. The question “what happens to my commission if I leave before it’s paid?” is rarely asked before it becomes urgent. By then, the answer is whatever the contract says — or, if the contract is silent, whatever a labour tribunal decides.
The VAT invoice goes to the wrong entity. Commission in Dubai attracts 5% VAT. 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. An agent who has been paid informally — in cash, or to a personal account — has no VAT-compliant paper trail and no regulatory framework protecting that payment if it is disputed.
The timing of payment does not match the timing of departure. Attempting to manage split variables through spreadsheets creates the conditions for chronic errors: wrong split percentages applied to the wrong deal type, and disbursements delayed because no one can confirm which version of the commission agreement is the authoritative one. When an agent leaves and no single authoritative document governs the split, payment gets delayed — sometimes indefinitely — while the parties argue about the terms.
What Ejari and rental deals add to the picture
Rental transactions bring their own timing wrinkle. On a lease, the commission is typically paid at signing. For a residential lease in the secondary market, the tenant conventionally pays 5% of the annual rent as commission, plus 5% VAT on that amount, once at signing. Once the tenancy contract is signed and registered on Ejari, the agency’s fee is usually received. But if an agent departs between the client signing and the cheque clearing — or if the tenant’s post-dated cheques are held by the landlord and the first one hasn’t been cashed yet — there is a brief window where payment is in limbo.
Post-dated cheques are standard in Dubai rental practice. A landlord may hold multiple post-dated cheques from the tenant covering a year’s rent. The agent’s commission cheque, if not cashed immediately, sits in the same uncertain space if the agent leaves and the brokerage decides to contest the internal split.
The only protection here is the same as everywhere else: a signed agreement that names the agent, the deal, and the amount, before any money moves.
The structural problem: payment is sequential, liability is immediate
Here is the core mechanical problem that no amount of goodwill solves.
In a Dubai secondary-market deal, the chain of events typically runs: offer → Form F → NOC from developer or owners association → DLD transfer → commission cheque. In an off-plan deal, it is: booking → SPA → developer releases commission → brokerage receives it → internal split happens. In a rental, it is: offer → tenancy contract → Ejari registration → commission received.
At every stage, there is a gap between when the agent did the work and when the money arrives. If the agent leaves during that gap — for any reason — the payment that was always going to arrive becomes contested. The brokerage that holds the money has a structural advantage. The agent who has left has to prove their entitlement from outside, through whatever documentation they have.
If a commission dispute arises, RERA’s Rental Disputes Settlement Centre handles the case. Having a written agreement is essential to win any dispute. That applies between agencies, and it applies between an agent and their brokerage — though the latter uses the labour framework rather than the RERA route.
What protects the agent who leaves — and what does not
What does protect you:
- A signed Form I that names your brokerage and specifies the split, dated before the deal closed.
- A signed Form F that records the commission split between agencies.
- An employment contract with a clause specifically saying commission is owed on deals introduced by you, regardless of employment status at time of payment.
- Written confirmation — even by email — of any split agreed during the deal, sent contemporaneously.
- A commission invoice from your brokerage to the paying party that is correctly VAT-compliant and names you as the originating agent.
What does not protect you:
- A verbal agreement to split commission.
- WhatsApp messages that were seen but never confirmed.
- The fact that you “did all the work.”
- An assumption that your brokerage will pay you out of goodwill.
- The belief that RERA will adjudicate your internal employment dispute.
Only an agent holding an active RERA broker card, working under a brokerage with a valid Dubai trade license, can lawfully collect commission, and the listing must carry a valid Trakheesi permit. These requirements mean the deal is always brokerage-to-brokerage at the regulatory level. The individual agent’s position inside that is governed by private contract. The stronger that contract, the more protected the agent is when timing works against them.
The filing question: where do you actually go if it goes wrong?
If the dispute is between two agencies over a co-broke split, the RERA dispute resolution mechanism and, where applicable, the Rental Disputes Settlement Centre are the relevant forums. Broker conduct sits with DLD/RERA — but if a commission mess has spilled into a tenancy, the RDC may become relevant too.
If the dispute is between an individual agent and their former brokerage over an internal commission split, that is a labour matter. The Ministry of Human Resources and Emiratisation, and ultimately the labour courts, handle it. RERA does not arbitrate employment terms.
The evidence burden is the same in both settings. Whoever has the signed documents wins. Whoever is relying on memory, witnesses, and “everyone knew the deal” loses — or at best settles for less than they were owed.
The only outcome that removes the dispute entirely
Every scenario above shares a common thread. The agent who left is trying to reconstruct their entitlement from documentation that was created during the deal but was never designed to answer the post-departure question. Form F records the split between agencies. Form I records the split between agencies. Neither form was designed to protect an individual agent who leaves their brokerage. They protect the brokerages.
The individual agent’s protection has to come from somewhere else: a written split agreement signed before the client pays, that commits every party — both agencies and, where relevant, the individual agent’s brokerage — to a specific amount, payable in a specific way, at the moment commission is received. Not days after. Not “when we process it.” At the moment the money comes in.
When that agreement exists and the payment is made at the same time to all parties simultaneously, there is nothing to dispute. The agent who leaves — before or after — either has a confirmed payment in their account or a signed document showing exactly what they are owed and when. The brokerage cannot delay. The other agency cannot redirect. The sequence is resolved.
This is not an aspirational standard. It is the mechanical consequence of doing the paperwork correctly at the right time. The agents who get paid fastest, even when deals drag or their employment situation changes, are the ones who locked in a signed split agreement before the client’s money was released — and made sure every party was paid at once, from that same transaction, with nothing left to process later.
Agree the split. Sign it. Make sure payment flows simultaneously. Everything else in a commission dispute is a consequence of not doing those three things in order.
