Civil Law And UAE Basic Causation Principles

1. Introduction

Causation is one of the most important principles of UAE civil liability law. It determines whether the defendant's act, omission, contractual breach, or unlawful conduct is legally connected to the damage suffered by the claimant.

In simple terms:

Wrongful conduct + legally sufficient causal connection + damage = civil liability, where the other elements of liability are established.

A person may have acted wrongfully, and damage may have occurred, but liability does not necessarily follow unless the claimant establishes the required causal connection between the conduct and the loss.

Causation becomes particularly difficult where there are:

multiple causes;

contributory conduct by the claimant;

intervening events;

medical complications;

contractual breaches;

defective products;

professional negligence;

construction defects;

cyber incidents;

financial losses;

force majeure;

third-party conduct.

2. Meaning of Causation

Causation means the legal connection between:

Defendant's conduct → harmful event → claimant's damage

For example:

A negligently damages an electrical system → fire occurs → B's property is destroyed.

If the negligent conduct caused the fire and the fire caused B's loss, causation may be established.

But suppose:

A makes a minor repair → an independent lightning strike causes the fire.

A's conduct may not be the legally relevant cause of the damage.

Therefore, causation is not simply about chronological sequence.

Before does not necessarily mean because of.

3. Causation in UAE Civil Law

Historically, UAE civil liability was principally analysed under the 1985 Civil Transactions Law, including the provisions concerning unlawful acts and damage.

The new Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the Civil Transactions Law, effective 1 June 2026, replaced the 1985 Code.

Therefore, for current UAE disputes, causation must be analysed under the new Civil Transactions Law together with applicable special legislation.

Older judgments remain important because they explain established UAE civil-law reasoning, but they should be described as historical or doctrinal authorities where they interpreted the repealed 1985 Code.

4. The Three Basic Elements of Civil Liability

Causation normally operates together with three fundamental elements:

1. Wrongful conduct

There must be an act, omission, breach, or other legally actionable conduct.

2. Damage

The claimant must have suffered legally recognizable harm.

3. Causation

The wrongful conduct must be sufficiently connected to the damage.

Therefore:

Wrongful conduct alone is insufficient.

And:

Damage alone is insufficient.

The claimant normally needs to establish the legally relevant causal connection between them.

5. Factual and Legal Causation

Causation can usefully be divided into two questions.

A. Factual causation

The question is:

Would the damage have occurred without the defendant's conduct?

This is sometimes expressed through the "but-for" analysis.

Example:

A contractor fails to install required waterproofing.

Water enters the building because of the missing waterproofing.

Without the failure, the particular water damage would probably not have occurred.

B. Legal causation

The second question is:

Should the law attribute the damage to the defendant?

This is more difficult.

Suppose:

A negligently causes a minor accident.

B then suffers an unusually severe and completely independent event several weeks later.

Although A's conduct may form part of the historical chain of events, the law may not attribute the later loss to A.

Therefore:

Factual causation ≠ automatic legal responsibility.

6. Direct and Indirect Causes

UAE civil-law reasoning traditionally distinguishes between different forms of causal contribution.

Direct cause

The defendant's act directly produces the damage.

Example:

A deliberately breaks B's window.

The causal relationship is straightforward.

Indirect cause

The defendant's conduct contributes to a chain of events producing the damage.

Example:

A negligently leaves an obstruction on a road → another vehicle swerves → collision occurs → B suffers damage.

The court must determine whether the intervening event breaks the causal chain or remains a foreseeable/consequential part of the sequence.

7. Adequate or Legally Relevant Causation

Not every factual consequence necessarily generates civil liability.

Courts generally need to identify whether the defendant's conduct was sufficiently connected to the particular harm.

Factors may include:

foreseeability;

proximity;

nature of the original wrongful act;

intervening events;

claimant's conduct;

third-party conduct;

abnormal circumstances;

contractual allocation of risk.

The exact test depends upon the applicable UAE legal rule and the facts of the case.

8. Multiple Causes

A single injury may have several causes.

For example:

Defective machine + negligent operator + inadequate maintenance → injury

The court may have to determine:

whether each factor contributed to the damage;

whether one factor was predominant;

whether the claimant contributed to the loss;

whether liability should be apportioned;

whether one cause legally interrupted another.

This makes causation particularly important in:

construction;

medical liability;

transportation;

banking fraud;

product liability;

environmental damage;

cyber incidents.

9. Concurrent Causes

Concurrent causes exist where two or more independent factors contribute to the same harm.

Example:

Contractor A constructs a defective wall, while Contractor B removes supporting structures. The wall collapses.

Both events may have contributed.

The court must examine the evidence and determine the legal responsibility of each participant.

This is different from a situation where one person's conduct is merely followed by an entirely independent event.

10. Intervening Cause

An intervening cause is a subsequent event occurring between the defendant's conduct and the ultimate damage.

Examples include:

third-party negligence;

intentional criminal conduct;

natural events;

claimant's independent conduct;

medical complications.

The important question is whether the intervening event is sufficiently independent to break the causal chain.

For example:

A negligently leaves dangerous material exposed.
B deliberately misuses it and causes an explosion.

The court may need to decide whether B's deliberate conduct supersedes A's original negligence.

There is no universal answer; the circumstances matter.

11. Claimant's Own Conduct

The claimant's conduct can affect causation and compensation.

For example:

A supplies a defective machine, but B knowingly ignores clear safety instructions.

The court may consider whether B's conduct:

contributed to the injury;

aggravated the damage;

reduced recoverable compensation;

or, in an appropriate case, interrupted the causal chain.

Thus, causation and contributory fault are closely connected but should not be treated as identical concepts.

12. Causation and Force Majeure

Force majeure or an extraordinary external event may affect causation.

Suppose:

A contractor breaches a safety obligation, but an extraordinary natural disaster independently destroys the entire structure.

The court must determine whether the disaster:

caused the loss independently;

merely aggravated existing damage;

or operated together with the original breach.

Therefore, force majeure is not merely a contractual concept. It can also affect the causal analysis of liability.

13. Causation in Contractual Liability

Causation is also important in breach-of-contract cases.

The claimant generally needs to establish:

Contract → breach → legally attributable loss

Example:

A supplier promises to deliver goods by 1 June.

The supplier delivers on 20 June.

The buyer claims substantial lost profits.

The court must determine:

whether there was a breach;

whether the delay caused the claimed loss;

whether the loss was sufficiently connected to the breach;

whether the claimant could have mitigated the loss;

whether the claimed amount is proved.

A contractual breach therefore does not automatically establish every item of damages claimed by the injured party.

14. Causation and Damages

Causation determines the scope of recoverable damage.

The claimant may suffer:

Direct loss

Damage immediately resulting from the wrongful conduct.

Consequential loss

Further loss arising from the original event.

The court must determine whether each claimed loss is legally attributable to the defendant.

For example:

A damages B's commercial vehicle.

B may claim repair costs.

But B may additionally claim lost business revenue.

The second claim requires stronger proof of the causal relationship and amount of loss.

15. Causation and Expert Evidence

Complex causation questions often require expert evidence.

Experts may be needed in:

engineering;

medicine;

accounting;

construction;

banking;

technology;

cybersecurity;

valuation.

For example, in a construction dispute:

Owner alleges that defective design caused structural cracks.

The court may appoint an engineering expert to determine:

source of cracks;

construction quality;

design adequacy;

maintenance;

external causes;

causal relationship.

However:

The expert does not decide the legal issue of liability.

The court remains responsible for the ultimate legal conclusion.

16. Electronic and AI-Related Causation

Modern UAE civil litigation creates new causation questions.

Consider:

AI system → incorrect recommendation → human decision → financial loss

The court must determine:

Was the AI output defective?

Was the system appropriately designed?

Did the user rely on it?

Did the user independently verify it?

Was there human intervention?

Was the loss foreseeable?

Did another event cause the loss?

Can the claimant establish the amount of damage?

AI output therefore does not automatically establish causation.

Similarly:

AI correlation ≠ legal causation.

17. Cybersecurity Causation

Suppose a bank customer loses AED 500,000 after an unauthorized electronic transfer.

Potential causes could include:

phishing;

customer's disclosure of credentials;

malware;

bank authentication failure;

employee misconduct;

system vulnerability;

third-party cyberattack.

The court must determine the causal contribution of each factor.

This demonstrates why causation can be more complicated in digital civil liability than in traditional physical-damage cases.

18. Important UAE Case Laws

The following cases illustrate UAE judicial principles relevant to causation.

1. Dubai Court of Cassation — Case No. 266/2008

Principle

The court considered causation where more than one circumstance or factor contributed to the resulting harm.

Importance

This is a useful foundational authority for understanding concurrent causes and causal contribution.

In a modern case, similar reasoning can be relevant where damage results from:

several contractors;

multiple negligent actors;

product defects;

financial misconduct;

cyber incidents.

The case should be treated as a historical/doctrinal authority rather than a direct interpretation of the 2026 Civil Transactions Law.

2. UAE Federal Supreme Court — Civil Appeal No. 79/2020

Principle

The Court dealt with the evidentiary significance of an admission recognizing an existing right.

Causation relevance

Although not primarily a causation case, it demonstrates the importance of establishing the factual foundation of a civil claim.

In a damages action, admissions concerning:

the occurrence of an event;

contractual breach;

debt;

responsibility;

may become important evidence when the court reconstructs the causal sequence.

3. UAE Federal Supreme Court — Commercial Appeal No. 215/2020

Principle

A properly reasoned expert report may be relied upon by the court where it addresses the technical issues presented.

Causation relevance

Causation frequently requires technical analysis.

For example:

defective construction → structural damage

or

accounting irregularity → financial loss.

The expert evidence can help establish the factual connection, while the court retains the final legal determination.

4. UAE Federal Supreme Court — Penal Cassation No. 1093/2019

Principle

The trial court has broad authority to evaluate evidence and determine its probative value.

Causation relevance

Where causation depends upon multiple forms of evidence, the court may evaluate:

documents;

witness evidence;

expert reports;

physical evidence;

electronic records;

circumstantial evidence.

This is primarily a general evidence authority rather than a direct civil-causation precedent.

5. UAE Federal Supreme Court — Penal Cassation No. 660/2023

Principle

A judicial conclusion may be drawn from the totality of the evidence where the inference is logically supported.

Causation relevance

Causal relationships are often proved indirectly.

For example:

Transaction records + communications + expert analysis + timing + conduct

may collectively establish a causal chain even when no single document proves the entire sequence.

6. UAE Federal Supreme Court — Penal Cassation No. 1422/2022

Principle

Evidence relied upon by the court must possess sufficient probative value, and the evidence must be properly scrutinized.

Causation relevance

A claimant cannot simply assert:

"The defendant caused my loss."

The causal allegation must be supported by sufficiently reliable evidence.

This is especially important in technical and financial disputes.

7. Dubai Court of Cassation — Civil Appeal No. 6/2017

Principle

Contractual obligations are interpreted and enforced according to their legal and contractual content.

Causation relevance

In contractual damages cases, the court must connect the contractual breach to the loss actually claimed.

Thus:

breach ≠ automatic entitlement to every claimed loss.

The claimant must establish the causal relationship and legally recoverable damage.

8. Dubai Court of Cassation — Appeal No. 440/2016

Principle

Contractual rights and obligations must be considered in accordance with the applicable principles of contractual performance and good faith.

Causation relevance

Where a party exercises a contractual right and the other party suffers loss, the court must distinguish legitimate contractual enforcement from conduct that legally causes compensable harm.

This is particularly useful in disputes concerning:

termination;

non-performance;

enforcement;

banking;

construction;

commercial contracts.

9. Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation — Case No. 902/2024

Principle

The Court examined the authority of representatives in relation to arbitration commitments.

Causation relevance

Although not a direct causation case, it demonstrates an important preliminary principle:

Liability cannot be imposed on a legal entity through a contractual act unless the relevant legal authority and attribution are established.

Attribution is frequently the first step before a court reaches causation.

10. Dubai Court of Cassation — Case No. 735/2024

Principle

The interpretation of arbitration agreements depends upon the contractual wording and the parties' intention.

Causation relevance

This is indirectly relevant because causation disputes may be determined through arbitration where the parties have made a valid arbitration agreement.

The case is therefore procedural rather than a direct substantive causation authority.

19. Causation Versus Attribution

These concepts should not be confused.

Attribution

Who legally committed the relevant conduct?

Causation

Did that conduct cause the damage?

Example:

A company's employee negligently sends confidential information to a third party.

First question:

Is the employee's conduct attributable to the company?

Second:

Did that conduct cause the claimant's loss?

Third:

What amount of damage was legally caused?

These are distinct stages.

20. Causation Versus Fault

Fault and causation are also different.

Fault

Was the defendant's conduct wrongful or negligent?

Causation

Did that conduct cause the damage?

Example:

A drives negligently but does not cause an accident.

There may be fault, but no damage caused by that particular conduct.

Conversely, an event may cause damage without involving legally actionable fault.

Therefore:

Fault answers "Was the conduct wrongful?"

Causation answers "Did that conduct cause the damage?"

21. Causation Versus Damage

Damage is the actual loss.

Causation connects the wrongful conduct to that loss.

For example:

Defective product → fire → AED 200,000 property damage

Defect = wrongful/defective condition.

Fire = harmful event.

AED 200,000 = damage.

Connection between defect and fire/property loss = causation.

22. Burden of Establishing Causation

As a general civil-litigation principle, the claimant bears the burden of establishing the facts necessary for the claim.

Accordingly, a claimant seeking damages normally needs evidence establishing:

wrongful conduct;

damage;

causal connection;

amount of loss.

The precise burden may vary depending upon the substantive legislation and procedural circumstances.

23. Common Problems in Causation Cases

Problem 1: Too many causes

Several parties contribute to the damage.

Problem 2: Weak evidence

The claimant establishes that damage occurred but cannot demonstrate its cause.

Problem 3: Speculative losses

The claimant claims hypothetical future profits without adequate evidence.

Problem 4: Intervening event

A third party or natural event occurs after the defendant's conduct.

Problem 5: Claimant's own fault

The claimant contributes to the damage.

Problem 6: Expert disagreement

Experts identify different causes.

Problem 7: Digital evidence

The causal chain depends upon electronic records.

Problem 8: AI decision-making

It becomes difficult to determine whether the loss resulted from:

AI → human operator → organization → third party.

24. Practical Causation Test

A useful examination framework is:

Question 1

What did the defendant do or fail to do?

Question 2

What damage occurred?

Question 3

Would the damage have occurred without the defendant's conduct?

Question 4

Was there an intervening event?

Question 5

Did the claimant contribute to the damage?

Question 6

Did another person contribute to the damage?

Question 7

Is the claimed loss legally attributable to the defendant?

Question 8

Can the amount of loss be proved?

25. Example: Construction Dispute

Suppose a building develops serious cracks.

Possible causes include:

defective design;

poor materials;

negligent construction;

soil movement;

inadequate maintenance;

unauthorized alteration.

The owner cannot simply establish:

"The building has cracks."

The court must determine:

Which event caused the cracks?

An engineering expert may investigate the physical causes.

The court then decides the legal responsibility.

This illustrates the distinction between:

technical causation → legal causation → liability.

26. Example: Medical Liability

Suppose a patient suffers complications after treatment.

Possible causes include:

medical negligence;

underlying disease;

unavoidable medical complication;

patient's failure to follow instructions;

later infection.

The existence of an adverse medical outcome does not automatically prove negligence or causation.

The court may require medical expert evidence.

27. Example: Banking Fraud

Suppose AED 1 million is transferred fraudulently.

Possible causal factors:

Phishing → customer disclosure → compromised account → transfer

or

bank security failure → unauthorized authentication → transfer

or

employee fraud → unauthorized transfer

The court must identify the legally relevant causal chain.

28. Causation and Mitigation

Once a causal connection is established, the claimant may still have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent unnecessary enlargement of the loss.

Example:

A damages a commercial machine.

The owner could reasonably repair it for AED 20,000 but leaves it unrepaired for six months and claims AED 500,000 of additional losses.

The court may investigate whether the additional loss was actually caused by the original wrongful conduct or resulted partly from the claimant's own failure to mitigate.

29. Summary Table

30. Effect of the 2026 Civil Transactions Law

For current UAE research, an important qualification is necessary.

The cases discussed above largely predate the Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which became effective on 1 June 2026.

Therefore:

they should not automatically be presented as cases interpreting the new Civil Transactions Law;

their reasoning may remain valuable where the underlying civil-law concept continues;

current disputes must be tested against the wording of the 2026 Code;

special legislation may modify the ordinary causation analysis;

contractual provisions, evidence rules and sector-specific legislation may also affect liability.

This distinction is particularly important for academic or professional legal writing.

31. Conclusion

Causation is the bridge between wrongful conduct and legally recoverable damage. UAE civil law does not treat every factual connection as sufficient for liability. The court must determine whether the defendant's conduct was legally connected to the claimant's loss.

The principal concepts are:

Factual causation.

Legal causation.

Direct and indirect causation.

Concurrent causes.

Intervening causes.

Claimant's contribution.

Third-party conduct.

Force majeure.

Contractual causation.

Expert evidence.

Causation and damages.

Causation in digital and AI-related disputes.

The most important practical formula is:

Wrongful conduct → causal connection → damage → legally recoverable loss.

Where several factors contribute to the damage, UAE courts examine the totality of the evidence, including expert evidence where necessary, and determine whether the alleged loss can legally be attributed to the defendant. The older UAE cases remain useful foundations, but for disputes arising under the post-1 June 2026 regime, the new Civil Transactions Law must be treated as the primary statutory starting point.