Civil Law and UAE Bailment and Custody Obligations

1. Introduction

Bailment and custody concern situations where one person receives possession or control of another person's property for safekeeping, handling, transportation, storage, administration or another agreed purpose, while ownership normally remains with the original owner.

Under UAE law, the concept is particularly important for:

warehouses;

banks and financial institutions;

jewellery and valuables;

hotels and parking facilities;

logistics companies;

shipping and freight businesses;

repair and maintenance businesses;

agents;

escrow arrangements;

professional custodians;

court-appointed custodians;

digital assets and wallets; and

property held for another person.

The UAE's current Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, in force from 1 June 2026. Its provisions on wadi'ah (deposit/bailment) provide a detailed statutory framework. The new law defines bailment as a contract under which the bailee receives property, undertakes to preserve it and must return it in kind. (Shushin UAE)

A particularly important principle is that a deposit is ordinarily an amanah (trust) in the bailee's hands. The bailee is not automatically an insurer of the property. Liability generally arises where the loss is attributable to the bailee through wrongful conduct, negligence, misuse or failure to observe the required standard of custody. (Shushin UAE)

2. Meaning of Bailment

Under Article 904 of the current Civil Transactions Law:

Bailment is a contract whereby the bailee receives property from the bailor, keeps it safe and returns the property itself.

The essential elements are therefore:

Property belonging to or possessed by one person;

delivery or constructive delivery to another;

an obligation of custody or safekeeping;

retention of ownership by the bailor; and

an obligation to return the same property.

The property must also be capable of possession. (Shushin UAE)

Thus, a typical example is:

Owner → delivers laptop → repair company → repair company must preserve and return laptop.

The repair company normally does not become owner of the laptop.

3. Bailor and Bailee

The two principal parties are:

Bailor

The person who delivers or entrusts the property.

Bailee

The person who receives the property and undertakes to preserve and return it.

For example:

Customer → deposits jewellery → jewellery-storage business

Customer = bailor

Storage business = bailee

Jewellery = bailed property

The relationship is fundamentally about possession and custody, not transfer of ownership.

4. Bailment Versus Custody

The expressions "bailment" and "custody" are related but should not always be treated as identical.

Bailment

Normally involves transfer of possession or legally recognised control to another person for a defined purpose.

Custody

Emphasises the obligation to safeguard property, sometimes arising from:

contract;

agency;

employment;

court order;

statutory obligation;

professional relationship; or

another legal relationship.

The current Civil Transactions Law separately recognises judicial custodianship (الحراسة).

Article 931 defines custodianship as an arrangement under which a custodian preserves and administers disputed property and returns it, together with its proceeds, to whoever is legally entitled to it. (Shushin UAE)

5. Ordinary Bailment Under UAE Civil Law

The current statutory provisions are particularly detailed.

Article 906

The deposit is treated as a trust in the hands of the bailee.

The bailee is liable where the property perishes for a cause attributable to the bailee, subject to the contractual framework. (Shushin UAE)

This produces an important distinction:

Loss alone ≠ automatic liability.

The court asks:

Was the loss attributable to the bailee?

6. Standard of Care

Article 908 provides that the bailee must take the care that an ordinary person would take in preserving his own property and must place the property in an appropriate place of safety.

The bailee may preserve the property personally or entrust it to a trustworthy person in appropriate circumstances. (Shushin UAE)

This establishes a reasonable-care standard.

For example, if a person receives expensive jewellery for storage, ordinary care may require:

secure premises;

restricted access;

appropriate surveillance;

proper records;

controlled keys;

appropriate insurance where contractually required; and

reasonable protection against foreseeable theft.

Simply saying "the property was stolen" will not necessarily establish liability.

7. Gratuitous and Paid Bailment

Bailment may be:

Gratuitous

No remuneration is paid for custody.

For reward

The bailee receives a fee for storage or custody.

Article 907 provides that the bailee cannot demand remuneration for custody or the place used to store the property unless remuneration was agreed upon at the time of bailment or is established by a particular custom. (Shushin UAE)

A commercial warehouse, professional storage facility or paid custodian will generally fall into the second category.

A paid bailee can therefore be expected to maintain an appropriate professional standard of care.

8. Duty Not to Use the Property

Article 910 prohibits the bailee from using the deposited property or creating a right over it for another person without the bailor's permission.

If the bailee does so and the property is damaged or loses value, the bailee becomes liable. (Shushin UAE)

For example:

A customer gives a luxury vehicle to a company only for storage.

If the company uses the vehicle for personal transportation without permission and damages it, the company may be liable.

This is more than mere negligence.

It is unauthorised use of entrusted property.

9. Duty Not to Transfer Custody Improperly

Article 909 generally prohibits the bailee from depositing the property with a third person without the bailor's consent unless urgent necessity requires it.

If the bailor authorises the transfer, the third person becomes the bailee and the original bailee may be released from the relevant obligations, subject to the statutory conditions. (Shushin UAE)

This principle is particularly important in:

logistics;

warehousing;

subcontracted transportation;

banking;

securities custody; and

professional storage.

A custodian cannot simply transfer the property to an unknown third party and then argue that it is no longer responsible.

10. Loss or Theft

Article 915 is particularly important.

The bailee is liable where the property is lost or stolen because the bailee:

failed to follow the agreed method of safekeeping;

failed to follow customary security practices;

forgot where the property was placed; or

took the property somewhere when it could reasonably have been left at home or with a trustworthy person. (Shushin UAE)

Therefore:

Theft + negligence = potential liability.

But:

Theft + reasonable care + absence of attributable fault = potentially no liability.

This is one of the central features of UAE bailment law.

11. Duty to Return the Property

Article 912 requires the bailee to return the deposit to the bailor upon request at the place of bailment unless otherwise agreed. (Shushin UAE)

The duty is therefore not merely:

"Keep the property."

It is:

"Keep the property and return the same property when legally required."

If the property is destroyed without the bailee's fault, the bailee must generally pass to the bailor any compensation or rights obtained against third parties arising from the loss. (Shushin UAE)

12. Fruits and Profits

Article 913 provides that the bailee must return the benefits, fruits and proceeds of the deposit to the bailor. (Shushin UAE)

For example, where the property lawfully generates proceeds while held by the custodian, those proceeds ordinarily belong to the person entitled to the underlying property.

The bailee cannot treat the custody relationship as a transfer of beneficial ownership.

13. Mixing of Property

Article 914 deals with mixing.

If the bailee mixes the deposited property with other property in circumstances where it becomes impossible to distinguish it and the other property is not similar in kind and description, liability can arise immediately.

Where the property remains distinguishable, or the mixture consists of similar property, different rules apply concerning loss and proportional ownership. (Shushin UAE)

This is especially important for:

commodities;

money;

precious metals;

warehouse inventory;

fungible goods; and

bulk storage.

14. Money Deposits and Transformation Into Loans

An important distinction exists concerning money.

Article 927 provides that if the deposited property is money or another consumable thing and the bailee is authorised to use it, the relationship is treated as a loan, rather than an ordinary bailment. (Shushin UAE)

This distinction is extremely important for banking.

Example

If A gives B AED 100,000 merely to keep in a sealed box:

bailment

But if B is authorised to use the money and return an equivalent amount:

loan-type relationship

Thus, ownership and risk can change according to the parties' agreement.

15. Bailment Through an Agent

The current Civil Transactions Law also recognises that custody obligations can arise indirectly through agency.

Article 883 provides that money collected by an agent for the principal is treated as a bailment, and the agent is not liable if the money perishes without wrongdoing or negligence. (Shushin UAE)

This shows that bailment principles extend beyond traditional storage contracts.

They can apply where:

an agent collects money;

an employee receives property for the employer;

a representative receives documents;

an intermediary holds assets for a principal.

16. Judicial Custodianship

Ordinary bailment must be distinguished from judicial custodianship.

Under Article 931, a custodian may be appointed to preserve and administer disputed property and eventually deliver it to the person legally entitled to it. (Shushin UAE)

Article 937 provides that the agreement or court order establishing custodianship determines the custodian's powers and obligations. Where it does not do so, rules concerning bailment and agency apply to the extent compatible with the custodianship. (Shushin UAE)

Thus:

Judicial custodian = preservation + administration + neutrality.

A judicial custodian cannot ordinarily treat disputed property as his own.

17. Standard of Care of a Judicial Custodian

Article 938 requires the custodian to preserve and manage the entrusted property with the care of an ordinary person. (Shushin UAE)

This is especially important in disputes involving:

companies;

real estate;

shares;

businesses;

disputed assets;

inheritance;

partnership property;

corporate control.

The custodian must preserve the economic value of the property while avoiding unauthorised interference with the rights of the competing parties.

18. Bailment and Contractual Risk Allocation

Parties can establish detailed contractual rules concerning:

storage conditions;

security;

insurance;

permitted use;

inspection;

return procedures;

fees;

liability;

subcontracting;

force majeure;

notice;

indemnity.

However, contractual terms must be interpreted consistently with mandatory UAE law and general principles of good faith and public order.

A contractual clause stating:

"The custodian is never liable under any circumstances"

cannot automatically resolve every dispute.

The court may examine:

wording;

negligence;

intentional misconduct;

mandatory statutory rules;

causation;

public policy; and

the actual nature of the relationship.

19. Important Case Laws

UAE onshore reported jurisprudence specifically labelled "bailment" is comparatively limited in publicly accessible English-language databases. The DIFC Courts, however, have developed particularly useful UAE jurisprudence because the DIFC Law of Obligations contains an express statutory Part dealing with bailment.

The following cases should therefore be distinguished between direct bailment authorities and related custody/deposit authorities.

Case 1: Gate Mena DMCC v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd [2024] DIFC DEC 002

This is the most important modern UAE case on bailment.

The dispute concerned a cryptocurrency transaction involving Bitcoin and the question whether Tabarak's role could amount to a form of custodial/bailment relationship.

The court examined the possibility that Tabarak had the characteristics of a bailee for reward.

The court described the essential obligation of such a bailee as taking reasonable care of entrusted property and returning it, rather than guaranteeing its absolute safety. (DIFC Courts)

The court specifically rejected the proposition that bailment automatically creates strict liability.

Principle

A bailee's fundamental obligation is ordinarily one of reasonable care, not strict insurance of the property.

The case is exceptionally important for modern custody arrangements because it extends the discussion into digital assets and technological custody.

20. Case 2: Gate Mena DMCC v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd [2023] DIFC CA 002

The DIFC Court of Appeal considered the legal issues surrounding the alleged bailment of Bitcoin and the Trezor wallet.

The Court discussed Article 66 of the DIFC Law of Obligations, which defines bailment as arising when a person lawfully possessing property transfers possession to another. (DIFC Courts)

The Court also considered whether factual control over crypto-assets could potentially produce a relationship analogous to possession.

Importantly, the Court recognised that the question of whether cryptocurrency itself could be the subject of bailment required careful analysis.

Principle

The traditional concepts of:

possession;

custody;

control;

property; and

bailment

must be carefully adapted when dealing with intangible or digital assets.

This case demonstrates that custody law is not limited to traditional physical goods.

21. Case 3: Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Almakhawi [2025] DIFC CFI 039

This case involved claims concerning assets allegedly transferred among family members to frustrate enforcement.

The claimant pleaded that certain persons held assets as agents and/or bailees for the judgment debtor.

The case referred to Article 962 of the UAE Civil Transactions Law, which defined bailment under the earlier Civil Code as a contract under which a person undertakes to take care of property and return the property itself. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Bailment can become relevant in asset-recovery litigation where a defendant claims that property is merely being held for another person.

This is especially important where the court must distinguish:

genuine transfer of ownership;

sham transfer;

agency;

bailment; and

beneficial ownership.

22. Case 4: Jabilo v Jedoun [2019] DIFC SCT 137

This case concerned a tenancy security deposit.

The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal ordered the landlord to return the remaining amount of the tenant's security deposit. (DIFC Courts)

Although a tenancy security deposit is not identical to traditional wadi'ah, the case demonstrates an important custody-related principle:

Money held for a defined contractual purpose cannot automatically be treated as belonging beneficially to the person holding it.

Principle

A person holding a deposit must establish a contractual or legal basis for retaining it.

This is particularly relevant to:

landlords;

property managers;

brokers;

escrow agents; and

commercial custodians.

23. Case 5: Natale v Noraiz [2024] DIFC SCT 278

This case concerned a tenancy security deposit of AED 5,367.25.

The landlord sought to retain the deposit for various alleged property-related expenses after the tenant vacated. (DIFC Courts)

The case illustrates that retention of money described as a "security deposit" depends upon the contractual entitlement and evidential basis for deduction.

Principle

A holder of a security deposit does not obtain unrestricted ownership merely because the money is physically in its possession.

There must be a proper legal basis for retaining or applying it.

24. Case 6: Nazeem v Niamat [2024] DIFC SCT 377

The dispute concerned a tenancy security deposit.

The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal allowed certain deductions for repairs while dealing with the remaining security deposit. (DIFC Courts)

The case illustrates the distinction between:

legitimate deductions;

ordinary deterioration;

damage;

contractual rights; and

unjustified retention.

Principle

A person holding money as security must account for the basis upon which deductions are made.

This principle has wider relevance to custodial relationships.

25. Case 7: Luyam v Lehat & Larst [2022] DIFC SCT 362

This case involved an AED 8,500 security deposit under a tenancy agreement.

The tribunal ordered payment of AED 1,531 and return of AED 6,969 of the security deposit. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Where money is held as security, the holder must distinguish between:

amounts genuinely attributable to contractual obligations; and

amounts that must be returned.

The case demonstrates the practical importance of accountability in custodial money arrangements.

26. Case 8: Harlow v Hattie [2017] DIFC SCT 105

This case concerned a tenancy security deposit of AED 5,000.

The tribunal ordered the landlord to reimburse AED 2,000 of the remaining security deposit. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A deposit-holder cannot simply retain the whole deposit without establishing an appropriate basis for deductions.

This supports the broader civil-law principle that custody of another person's money creates obligations of accountability and return.

27. Case 9: Eshraq Investments PJSC v Shehab M. Gargash & Others [2021] DIFC CFI 077

This case involved extensive disputes concerning property and financial arrangements.

The judgment is relevant because the DIFC Court recognised that the Law of Obligations contains the statutory framework dealing with bailment and other obligations. (DIFC Courts)

The Court's discussion is useful for understanding the broader structure of DIFC obligations.

Principle

Bailment is a recognised statutory obligation within the DIFC legal system rather than merely an imported common-law doctrine.

28. Case 10: The Industrial Group Ltd v Hamid [2022] DIFC CA 005 & 006

The DIFC Court of Appeal expressly observed that the DIFC Law of Obligations deals with several areas, including:

negligence;

occupiers' liability;

deceit;

economic torts;

nuisance;

insurance; and

bailment. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Bailment forms part of the codified architecture of DIFC private law.

This is important because DIFC jurisprudence cannot simply be treated as ordinary English common law: the DIFC has its own statutory formulation.

29. Difference Between Onshore UAE and DIFC Bailment

This distinction is extremely important.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly regulates bailment, including duties of the bailor and bailee. The legislation distinguishes ordinary bailment from certain categories such as securities, negotiable instruments and digital assets for purposes of Part 5. (studylib.net)

30. Bailment and Banks

Banks frequently hold property belonging economically to customers.

However, not every bank-customer relationship is technically a bailment.

Ordinary bank account

Usually creates a debtor-creditor relationship rather than ordinary physical bailment.

Safe-deposit box

May create a custody/bailment relationship depending upon the contractual arrangement and degree of bank control.

Securities custody

May involve specialised contractual, regulatory and custodial obligations.

Escrow

May create fiduciary/custodial obligations depending upon the governing agreement and applicable legislation.

Therefore, courts must examine the substance of the relationship rather than merely its label.

31. Bailment and Hotels

Hotels may receive:

luggage;

cars;

valuables;

documents;

packages.

A hotel that expressly receives an item for safekeeping may assume custodial obligations.

The relevant questions include:

Was possession transferred?

Was the item accepted for safekeeping?

Were special instructions given?

What security arrangements existed?

Was the loss foreseeable?

Did hotel staff act negligently?

Did the guest violate instructions?

The mere occurrence of theft does not automatically establish liability.

32. Bailment and Parking Facilities

A particularly interesting situation is vehicle parking.

Mere parking

If the customer simply parks the vehicle and retains control of the keys, the relationship may be closer to a licence to use space.

Custodial parking

If the operator takes the vehicle and keys and undertakes to return the vehicle, the relationship may contain strong elements of custody/bailment.

The difference can substantially affect liability for:

theft;

damage;

unauthorised use;

loss of keys.

33. Warehouse and Logistics Bailment

Commercial warehouses represent a classic example of professional custody.

The warehouse operator may be expected to:

maintain inventory records;

control access;

secure premises;

separate customers' goods;

prevent unauthorised removal;

maintain suitable environmental conditions;

comply with contractual storage requirements.

If goods disappear because access controls were negligently maintained, liability may arise.

But if destruction results from an unforeseeable event despite reasonable care, the result can be different.

34. Bailment and Digital Assets

One of the most important modern developments is the question of whether digital assets can be held in custody.

The Gate Mena litigation is especially significant because the DIFC Court considered whether Bitcoin and control through a wallet could fit within the concepts of:

property;

possession;

custody;

bailment.

The Court of Appeal noted that the issue required careful consideration because crypto-assets are intangible and their control operates through technological mechanisms. (DIFC Courts)

This creates a new model:

Owner → digital wallet/custodian → private key/control → blockchain asset

The central question becomes:

Is control of the private key sufficiently analogous to possession for custody obligations to arise?

The Gate Mena litigation shows that this question is legally significant in the UAE. (DIFC Courts)

35. Liability for Digital Custody

A digital custodian may be liable where it:

negligently stores private keys;

gives unauthorised access;

fails to follow agreed security procedures;

transfers assets without authority;

ignores cybersecurity warnings;

loses access credentials through negligence;

fails to follow contractual custody instructions.

But the custodian is not necessarily an insurer against every blockchain loss.

The reasonable-care principle remains important.

36. Bailment and Employees

Employees may receive:

company laptops;

vehicles;

documents;

cash;

equipment;

confidential materials.

An employee's possession does not necessarily mean ownership.

The employer may have rights to immediate return of the property.

If the employee intentionally misappropriates or negligently destroys entrusted property, contractual, civil and potentially criminal consequences may arise.

37. Bailment and Agents

Agency and bailment can overlap.

For example:

Principal → gives goods → agent → agent stores goods → returns goods.

The agent may simultaneously owe:

agency duties;

custody duties;

accounting duties;

confidentiality duties; and

reasonable-care duties.

The current Civil Transactions Law's treatment of money collected by an agent as a bailment demonstrates this overlap. (Shushin UAE)

38. Death of the Bailee

The current law specifically regulates what happens when the bailee dies.

Article 919 provides that if the deposit is found in the bailee's estate, it remains a trust in the hands of the heirs and must be returned to its owner.

If the heirs establish that the deposit had already been returned or was lost without wrongdoing or negligence, the estate is not liable. (Shushin UAE)

This illustrates an important principle:

The death of the custodian does not transform another person's property into estate property.

39. Death of the Bailor

Article 926 provides that when the bailor dies, the deposit is delivered to the heirs with court permission. (Shushin UAE)

This protects the bailee from delivering valuable property to an unauthorised person claiming to be an heir.

It is particularly important for:

jewellery;

documents;

securities;

family valuables;

corporate documents.

40. Expenses of Preservation

The bailee may incur legitimate expenses while preserving property.

Under Article 922, the bailor must reimburse expenses incurred with the bailor's permission.

Article 923 additionally recognises circumstances of urgency or necessity in which the bailee may incur customary expenses and recover them from the bailor. (Shushin UAE)

Thus:

Custody obligation → reasonable preservation expense → possible reimbursement.

41. Liability for Defective Property

The bailor also has obligations.

If the property itself causes damage to the bailee, the bailor may be responsible depending upon the cause.

Article 924 places responsibility on the bailor for costs of delivery and return and for damage suffered by the bailee because of the deposit, unless that damage is attributable to the bailee. (Shushin UAE)

Therefore, bailment is not a one-sided relationship.

Both parties have obligations.

42. Evidentiary Issues

In a custody dispute, the most important evidence may include:

receipt;

custody agreement;

inventory list;

photographs;

serial numbers;

CCTV;

access logs;

emails;

WhatsApp messages;

delivery records;

warehouse records;

key records;

blockchain records;

GPS information;

insurance documents.

The claimant should generally establish:

ownership or entitlement;

delivery;

acceptance by the custodian;

condition at delivery;

loss/damage;

demand for return; and

causation where required.

The bailee may then rely upon evidence demonstrating:

proper care;

compliance with instructions;

absence of negligence;

force majeure;

authorised use;

authorised transfer;

third-party wrongdoing; or

another legally recognised defence.

43. Burden of Proof

The precise burden depends upon the applicable procedural and evidentiary rules.

However, the practical dispute usually revolves around:

Was the property actually entrusted, and if so, was the loss attributable to the bailee?

This is why written custody records are extremely important.

A professional custodian should never rely solely on oral arrangements for high-value property.

44. Remedies

Where the bailee breaches its obligations, potential remedies include:

1. Return of property

The primary remedy.

2. Monetary compensation

For property destroyed, lost or damaged.

3. Compensation for diminution in value

Where property survives but its value is reduced.

4. Restitution

Where property or its proceeds have been wrongly retained.

5. Injunctions or precautionary measures

Where there is a risk of disposal or dissipation.

6. Accounting

Particularly important where proceeds, profits or benefits were generated.

7. Contribution or indemnity

Where another person is ultimately responsible.

45. Key Principles From the Case Law

The cases and statutory provisions collectively establish the following framework.

Principle 1 — Bailment is fundamentally custody

Ownership normally remains with the bailor.

Principle 2 — Custody creates a duty of care

The bailee must exercise the care required by law, contract and circumstances.

Principle 3 — Loss does not automatically equal liability

The cause of loss must be examined.

Principle 4 — Unauthorised use is particularly serious

Using entrusted property without permission can create liability.

Principle 5 — Return is a fundamental obligation

The bailee must return the property when legally required.

Principle 6 — Professional custodians face practical higher expectations

A commercial custodian's procedures and expertise can influence what constitutes reasonable care.

Principle 7 — Sub-custody must be authorised or justified

A bailee cannot casually transfer possession to third parties.

Principle 8 — Money may cease to be a bailment

Where the recipient is authorised to use consumable money, the relationship may become a loan.

Principle 9 — Judicial custody is different

A judicial custodian must preserve and administer disputed property according to the court's order.

Principle 10 — Digital assets create new custody questions

The Gate Mena cases demonstrate that traditional possession concepts are being tested by crypto-assets and digital wallets.

46. Practical Test for UAE Bailment Liability

A court can conceptually approach a dispute through the following sequence:

1. What property is involved?

↓

2. Who owned or was entitled to possess it?

↓

3. Was possession transferred?

↓

4. Did the recipient accept custody?

↓

5. What was the purpose of the custody?

↓

6. Was it gratuitous or for reward?

↓

7. What standard of care applied?

↓

8. Was the property used or transferred without authority?

↓

9. Was the property lost or damaged?

↓

10. Was the loss attributable to the bailee?

↓

11. Did a third party cause the loss?

↓

12. Did contract or statutory law allocate the risk differently?

↓

13. What compensation or restitution is appropriate?

This framework works for traditional goods as well as many modern custody arrangements.

47. Conclusion

UAE bailment and custody law is fundamentally based on the idea that a person who receives another person's property for safekeeping acquires responsibilities without necessarily acquiring ownership.

The current Civil Transactions Law gives the relationship a detailed statutory structure. Article 904 defines bailment; Article 906 treats the deposit as a trust; Article 908 establishes ordinary-person care; Articles 909–915 regulate third-party custody, use, travel, return and loss; and Articles 931–938 establish the separate framework of judicial custodianship. (Shushin UAE)

The most important modern UAE jurisprudence is Gate Mena v Tabarak, particularly because it examines the application of bailment principles to cryptocurrency custody. The case emphasises that a bailee's obligation is generally one of reasonable care rather than strict liability, while also demonstrating the difficulties created when traditional possession concepts are applied to digital assets. (DIFC Courts)

The overall UAE legal position can therefore be stated as follows:

A custodian is not normally an absolute insurer of entrusted property. The custodian must, however, exercise the legally and contractually required degree of care, refrain from unauthorised use or transfer, preserve the property, account for its benefits, and return it when legally required. Where loss results from the custodian's negligence, wrongful conduct, unauthorised use or failure to follow agreed or customary safeguards, civil liability may arise.

This makes UAE bailment law relevant not only to traditional storage and custody but also to banking, logistics, agency, hotels, vehicles, warehouses, judicial administration, financial assets and increasingly digital-asset custody.