The Federal DecreeLaw No. 25 of 2025 introducing the new UAE Civil Transactions Law marks one of the most comprehensive overhauls of civil liability in decades. Articles 245 to 258 redefine how harm, fault, causation, and compensation interact—reflecting a more sophisticated and policy aligned approach to modern civil wrongs. The law’s structure now aligns more closely with global civil law principles, while retaining distinctive UAE elements rooted in Sharia, public order, and fairness.
A Modern Distinction Between Direct and Indirect Harm
One of the most significant rewrites appears in Article 247, which introduces a clear distinction between direct harm and indirect harm. Direct harm imposes automatic liability without requiring further elements—anyone who directly causes damage must make reparation. Indirect harm, by contrast, requires proof of aggressive conduct, intent, or a causal link that makes the actor’s conduct responsible for the outcome. The law also clarifies how liability attaches when both a direct actor and an indirect causer contribute to the same damage, assigning primary liability to the direct actor.
This distinction brings important clarity: courts now have a statutory framework for differentiating between physically causing harm (for example, breaking a neighbour’s property) and contributing to harm through negligence or omission (such as leaving dangerous equipment unattended). The architecture is deliberately calibrated to ensure that liability aligns with the degree of causal connection.
SelfDefense and Emergency Situations: A Calibrated Liability Exception
Articles 248 to 252 take a nuanced approach to liability in exceptional circumstances. Notably, Article 250 formalizes legitimate selfdefense as a complete exclusion of liability—provided the defensive act does not exceed what is necessary. If defensive force goes beyond necessity, the actor becomes liable for excess harm.
Complementing this, Article 252 addresses situations in which a person causes harm to avert a greater imminent danger. In such cases, full liability does not automatically follow; instead, the court applies a “justice based” partial compensation model, allowing reduction of liability to reflect the emergency context. This doctrinal blend—selfdefense immunity and emergency based proportional liability—modernizes UAE tort doctrine in line with international principles while preserving equitable considerations.
Public Servant Liability: Balancing Accountability and Administrative Obedience
A particularly notable innovation is Article 251, which refines the liability of public servants and individuals acting under official instructions. The law relieves public servants of liability for harmful acts when committed under a superior’s order, provided they reasonably believed the order to be lawful and demonstrated due care. Where such conditions are met, compensation may instead be awarded against the party deemed actually responsible.
This provision strikes a balance between protecting public officials who act in administrative hierarchies and ensuring that victims of harm still obtain compensation. It also prevents abuse: the servant must prove reasonable belief in the lawfulness of the act—meaning blind obedience is not a defense.
Moral Damages Reimagined: Honor, Reputation, Social Standing & Emotional Harm
The new law significantly expands the scope of moral damages under Article 254. Compensation is no longer limited to purely material loss. Instead, the law expressly recognizes non-pecuniary harm including:
- Liberty violations
- Dignity and honor infringements
- Damage to reputation and social standing
- Harm to financial credit
It also allows the awarding of moral damages to spouses and relatives up to the second degree for emotional suffering resulting from the disability or death of a victim.
This is a remarkable evolution: moral damages—previously recognized but not comprehensively codified—are now expressly anchored in statute. This gives courts enhanced discretion and offers stronger protection against defamation, harassment, cyber harm, and reputational injury—issues highly relevant in the digital era.
Full Compensation: Actual Harm, Lost Profit & Flexible Remedies
Article 255 reinforces the principle that compensation must correspond to the actual harm sustained, including loss of profit, provided it is a natural consequence of the wrongful act. Article 256 further modernizes remedies by allowing:
- Monetary compensation
- Restoration of the prior condition
- Specific performance of a corrective act
- Installments or annuity based compensation
The court may also require guarantees or security, review compensation amounts if circumstances change, and reserve the right for victims to seek reassessment. This introduces a dynamic and restorative approach to compensation rather than a purely financial one.
Apportionment of Liability: A More Equitable System for MultiParty Harm
Article 253 addresses joint wrongdoers and provides a flexible framework for allocating responsibility. Courts may apportion liability in proportion to each actor’s share in the harm, assign equal shares, or impose joint and several liability where appropriate.
Additionally, if a victim contributed to the occurrence or aggravation of the harm, the court has the authority to reduce compensation or deny it entirely. This introduces a comparative fault model that enhances fairness and discourages negligent behavior by victims.
The ThreeYear Limitation Period: Balancing Stability and Access to Justice
Article 258 establishes a three year limitation period for actions arising from harmful acts. The time limit begins when the victim becomes aware of:
- The occurrence of harm, and
- The identity of the responsible party.
However, the law also sets a 15year long stop period from the date the harmful act occurred, ensuring that litigation cannot remain indefinitely possible.
This dual limitation system aligns with international norms by balancing the need for timely claims with the reality that some harms—especially those involving latent injury or complex causation—take time to uncover.
Conclusion: A Progressive, Balanced, and ContextSensitive Liability Regime
The revised civil liability architecture under the UAE’s 2025 Civil Transactions Law is both innovative and measured. The distinction between direct and indirect harm enhances doctrinal clarity. The treatment of selfdefense and emergency situations shows sensitivity to real world scenarios. Public servant liability provisions reflect administrative realities without sacrificing justice. Moral damages receive unprecedented recognition, and the apportionment rules support equitable outcomes. Finally, the three year limitation ensures legal certainty while safeguarding victim rights.
Collectively, Articles 245–258 establish a liability system that is fit for modern society, responsive to contemporary harms—digital, reputation, complex—and aligned with global best practices while rooted in the UAE’s legal identity.
Authors:
