Introduction

On November 13, 2024, the Federal Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment (Case No. 857 of 2023, Administrative) that delves into critical legal principles concerning civil procedure, medical liability, and administrative law. The court examined matters of procedural admissibility, medical responsibility, and judicial oversight over administrative decisions. This blog aims to break down the key aspects of the case and the court’s rationale.

1. Procedural Admissibility: The Principle of Standing

The court reiterated a cornerstone of civil litigation: standing. According to Articles 183 and 184 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code, appeals can only be directed against parties involved in the original dispute. Introducing new parties during an appeal, whether through intervention or joinder, is impermissible unless specific conditions are met.

In this case, the court dismissed a petitioner’s attempt to intervene at the appellate stage as the petitioner was not a party to the original proceedings at either the trial or appellate levels. The court emphasized that allowing such interventions would effectively create a new dispute contrary to procedural rules. This judgment underscores the importance of involving all relevant parties at the earliest stages of litigation to avoid procedural pitfalls.

2. Medical Liability: The Obligation to Exercise Due Care

The court provided a detailed exposition of medical liability under the Federal Law No. 4 of 2016. It clarified that a physician’s obligation is not to guarantee a patient’s recovery but to exercise due diligence and follow established medical standards. Key aspects of medical liability include:

1. Knowledge: A practitioner must be well-versed in the relevant technical standards of their profession.
2. Adherence to Protocols: Physicians are required to follow established professional and medical protocols.
3. Due Care: Any deviation from due diligence, negligence, or failure to exercise caution can constitute medical malpractice.

In the present case, a decision by the Higher Medical Liability Committee attributing partial liability (30%) to the appellant physician was overturned. The court found that the committee’s conclusion was unsupported by the expert report, which confirmed that the physician’s actions conformed to accepted medical standards.

3. Administrative Law: The Role of Judicial Review

The court also examined the scope of judicial oversight concerning administrative decisions, particularly the principle of “cause” as an essential element. According to administrative law, decisions must be grounded in factual and legal bases. If an administrative decision is founded on nonexistent or legally insufficient grounds, it becomes invalid.

Here, the court scrutinized an administrative decision by the Higher Medical Liability Committee. The decision held the appellant liable based on claims of inadequate evaluation and delayed surgery. However, the expert report contradicted these claims, stating that the physician’s actions were justified under prevailing medical standards. Consequently, the court invalidated the administrative decision, deeming it legally unsound.

4. Expert Reports and Judicial Discretion

The judgment reaffirmed the discretionary power of trial courts to assess evidence, including expert reports. Courts are not obligated to independently respond to every challenge against an expert report if the report is comprehensive and based on sound reasoning. In this case, the court relied heavily on the findings of the appointed medical expert, which negated any professional misconduct by the appellant.

Conclusion

This judgment is a landmark in clarifying procedural rules, medical liability standards, and judicial oversight over administrative decisions in the UAE. It reinforces the principles of due process, the importance of expert evidence, and the necessity for administrative decisions to be founded on credible and legally sustainable grounds. For practitioners and litigants, this case underscores the criticality of procedural compliance and the value of substantiating claims with robust evidence.

The Federal Supreme Court’s meticulous approach in this matter serves as a guiding precedent, particularly in disputes involving medical liability and administrative decision-making.