Civil Law and UAE Contribution Between Joint Tortfeasors

1. Introduction

Contribution between joint tortfeasors concerns the allocation of financial responsibility when two or more persons contribute to the same harmful event.

A typical example is where:

Contractor A performs defective work;

Engineer B negligently approves the work; and

the defective construction causes damage to the owner.

The injured person may have a claim against more than one responsible party. The important legal question then becomes:

How should responsibility for the compensation be distributed among the persons responsible for the same harm?

UAE civil law deals with this problem through the rules governing harmful acts, causation, multiple responsible persons and compensation.

A significant current-law point must be noted. Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the Civil Transactions Law came into force on 1 June 2026 and replaced the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law. The new law places the rule concerning multiple persons responsible for harm in Article 253, whereas the corresponding provision under the former Civil Code was Article 291.

2. Meaning of Joint Tortfeasors

Joint tortfeasors are two or more persons whose acts or legally attributable conduct contribute to the same harmful result.

Examples include:

Two negligent drivers causing one accident;

Contractor and consultant contributing to construction defects;

Several companies contributing to environmental damage;

Employer and employee in circumstances creating concurrent liability;

Several persons participating in a fraudulent transaction;

Several persons whose separate acts contribute to one financial loss.

The central requirements are generally:

More than one person is responsible;

Each person's conduct has a legally relevant connection with the harm;

There is sufficient causation;

The claimant has suffered legally compensable damage.

3. Current UAE Legal Basis — Article 253

The most important current provision is Article 253 of the 2025 Civil Transactions Law.

It provides, in substance, that:

where multiple persons are responsible for the harm, each is liable in proportion to their share; and

the court may impose liability equally or jointly and severally.

The same provision also allows the court to reduce or deny compensation where the injured person contributed to causing or aggravating the harm.

This is important because UAE law combines two concepts:

Internal allocation

The court can determine the respective share of responsibility.

External liability

The court may impose joint and several liability so that the claimant can recover the legally awarded compensation from any party against whom such liability has been imposed.

4. Former Article 291 and the New Article 253

Under the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law, Article 291 provided that where several persons were responsible for a harmful act, each was responsible according to their share, while the judge could order equal, joint or several liability.

The new law essentially preserves this important structure but renumbers it as Article 253.

Therefore:

The new law should therefore be used for disputes governed by the post-1 June 2026 framework.

5. Difference Between Joint Liability and Contribution

These concepts should not be confused.

Joint and Several Liability

This concerns the relationship between:

Injured person → Tortfeasors

Where joint and several liability is imposed, the injured person can seek the amount legally recoverable from the responsible parties in accordance with the judgment.

Contribution

Contribution concerns the relationship:

Tortfeasor A ↔ Tortfeasor B ↔ Tortfeasor C

It concerns how the ultimate financial burden should be distributed between the responsible parties.

Example

Damage = AED 1,000,000.

Three persons are responsible.

The court determines:

A = 50%

B = 30%

C = 20%

The internal allocation would correspond to:

A = AED 500,000

B = AED 300,000

C = AED 200,000.

If the judgment imposes joint and several liability toward the claimant, the external position can differ from this internal allocation.

6. Contribution Is Closely Connected to Causation

Contribution cannot normally be determined simply by counting the number of defendants.

For example:

A, B and C are defendants.

That does not automatically mean:

A = 33⅓%

B = 33⅓%

C = 33⅓%

The court may consider:

Nature of each person's conduct;

Causal contribution;

Evidence;

Technical reports;

Contractual responsibilities;

Degree of involvement;

Whether each person's act materially contributed to the same harm.

The current Article 253 expressly begins with responsibility according to each person's share in the harm.

7. Conditions for Joint Liability Under UAE Jurisprudence

A particularly important UAE authority is Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 309 of 2016.

The Court identified three important conditions for joint liability for compensation under the former Article 291:

Each person held liable must have committed a fault;

Each fault must have contributed to the occurrence of the damage;

There must be unity of the harm.

The case is especially important because the Court distinguished between merely participating in related wrongdoing and actually contributing to the same damage.

This provides a useful analytical formula:

Fault + Contribution to Harm + Unity of Harm = Basis for Joint Liability

8. Unity of Harm

The concept of unity of harm is particularly important.

Suppose:

A causes damage of AED 500,000;

B independently causes completely different damage of AED 300,000.

There may be multiple wrongdoers, but the court must examine whether the damage is legally the same harm before applying the rules concerning joint liability.

By contrast, if:

A negligently designs a building; and

B negligently supervises its construction,

and both acts contribute to the same structural failure, the unity-of-harm requirement is much more directly engaged.

The 2016 Dubai Cassation decision is important for this distinction.

9. Proportionate Responsibility

The normal analytical starting point under current Article 253 is each person's share in the harm.

For example:

A = 60%

B = 25%

C = 15%

Total = 100%.

If the compensable loss is AED 2 million, the proportional allocation would be:

The actual order made by a court can differ where the statutory conditions justify equal or joint and several liability.

10. Equal Allocation

The court may sometimes allocate responsibility equally.

For example:

A, B and C are each found responsible for the same harm, but the evidence does not establish a meaningful difference in their respective contributions.

The court may determine:

A = 1/3

B = 1/3

C = 1/3.

This is different from saying that equal allocation is automatically required.

The statute gives the court discretion within the applicable legal framework.

11. Joint and Several Liability

The UAE framework gives the court power to impose joint and several liability.

This can protect the claimant where dividing responsibility precisely is difficult or where the circumstances justify joint liability.

For example:

A, B and C contribute to damage of AED 3 million.

The court determines that all three are jointly and severally liable.

The claimant may then pursue the compensation in accordance with the judgment without having to prove that each defendant individually caused exactly one-third of the damage.

The internal allocation remains a separate question.

12. Contribution After Payment

A particularly important practical situation occurs when one tortfeasor pays more than his or her ultimately allocated share.

Example

Damage:

AED 1 million

A, B and C are jointly and severally liable.

Their respective internal shares are:

A = 50%

B = 30%

C = 20%.

Suppose A ultimately pays the claimant AED 1 million.

A has paid:

AED 1,000,000

but A's internal share is:

AED 500,000

Therefore, the remaining AED 500,000 represents the amount that A may seek to recover from the other responsible parties according to the applicable rules governing their respective shares and recourse.

This illustrates why external liability and internal contribution are different concepts.

13. Contribution and Causation

Contribution depends heavily on causation.

The court may ask:

Question 1

Did A's conduct contribute to the damage?

Question 2

Did B's conduct independently contribute to the same damage?

Question 3

Did C's conduct contribute to the same damage?

Question 4

Is there one unified injury or separate injuries?

Question 5

What evidence establishes each contribution?

These questions help determine whether Article 253 should result in:

proportional allocation;

equal allocation; or

joint and several liability.

14. Direct and Indirect Harm

The UAE civil-law system distinguishes between direct and consequential/causal harm.

Under the new Civil Transactions Law, Article 247 continues this structure.

The distinction is important because not every person connected factually with an event will necessarily be legally responsible for the resulting damage.

The claimant must establish the legally relevant connection between the defendant's conduct and the damage.

The new statutory structure places these rules immediately before Article 253 on multiple responsible persons.

15. Contribution and Contributory Conduct of the Victim

Contribution between tortfeasors should be distinguished from contributory conduct of the injured person.

Tortfeasor contribution

A + B → harm to C

A and B are responsible persons.

Victim contribution

A → harm

but C's own conduct contributes to or aggravates the damage.

Under current Article 253(2), the court may reduce compensation or refuse compensation where the injured person contributed to causing or aggravating the harm.

16. Construction Projects

Construction disputes are a major area where contribution between responsible parties becomes important.

Consider:

Employer;

Main contractor;

Subcontractor;

Architect;

Structural engineer;

Project manager.

A structural defect may result from several contributing failures.

For example:

Architect's design error

Contractor's defective execution

Engineer’s inadequate supervision

↓

Structural damage

The court may have to determine the responsibility of each party.

UAE jurisprudence has recognized the application of the multiple-responsibility principle to construction defects.

Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation No. 339/2009, for example, is reported as applying Article 291 to a defects claim and allocating responsibility equally between a consultant and contractor.

17. Decennial Liability and Joint Responsibility

Construction law creates an especially important statutory form of responsibility.

Under the former UAE Civil Code, the contractor and supervising architect could be subject to decennial liability for specified structural defects.

The new Civil Transactions Law retains and updates this regime in Articles 812–839, with Article 821 addressing the contractor and engineer's ten-year liability for specified structural failures and serious defects.

This illustrates that joint responsibility can arise not merely from ordinary negligence but also from special statutory regimes.

18. Professional Negligence

Joint responsibility may arise where different professionals contribute to the same injury.

For example:

Doctor;

Hospital;

Technician;

Laboratory;

Consultant.

Suppose incorrect laboratory results and negligent medical treatment combine to cause the same injury.

The court may need to examine:

Individual duties;

Actual conduct;

Causation;

Medical evidence;

Degree of responsibility.

A Dubai Court of Cassation decision concerning medical treatment illustrates that the courts can recognize multiple responsible persons and impose liability jointly where the factual and legal requirements are satisfied.

19. Vicarious Liability and Multiple Responsible Persons

Another difficult situation occurs when one person is directly responsible and another is responsible because of a legal relationship.

For example:

Employee → negligent act

Employer → vicarious responsibility

The court must distinguish:

Direct tortfeasor;

Person legally responsible for another;

Independent tortfeasor;

Contractually responsible party.

The existence of multiple defendants does not itself establish that all defendants have identical forms of liability.

20. Fraud and Multiple Wrongdoers

Fraudulent conduct can also involve multiple persons.

A number of people may:

Make false representations;

Transfer assets;

Conceal information;

Facilitate a transaction;

Participate in a harmful scheme.

A significant UAE-law authority is Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2022] EWHC 529 (Comm), where the English High Court considered UAE-law arguments based on Articles 282–291.

The judgment noted that UAE law does not simply import the English common-law concept of conspiracy; instead, the UAE courts assess the individual and collective acts under the Civil Code's general harmful-act principles and determine which defendants are liable and in what proportions.

This distinction is important when applying the concept of joint tortfeasorship in a UAE-law dispute.

21. Contribution Does Not Mean Equal Fault Automatically

One of the most important principles is:

Multiple defendants do not necessarily have equal responsibility.

For example:

A's contribution = major;

B's contribution = moderate;

C's contribution = minor.

The court can examine their respective contributions.

The current Article 253 expressly starts from proportional responsibility and then gives the court power to impose equal or joint and several liability.

22. Role of Expert Evidence

Contribution disputes frequently require expert evidence.

For example, in a construction case an expert may determine:

Design defect;

Workmanship defect;

Supervision failure;

Percentage of technical contribution;

Causal relationship.

The expert provides technical assistance.

The ultimate legal determination remains with the court.

UAE courts have repeatedly treated the assessment of factual evidence, expert reports and causation as matters falling within the trial court's fact-finding function, subject to legal limits.

23. Case Law 1 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 309 of 2016

Facts/Context

The case involved multiple persons alleged to be responsible for the same harm.

Principle

The Court explained that joint liability under Article 291 required:

Fault attributable to each person;

Contribution of each fault to the damage;

Unity of the damage.

Importance

This is one of the clearest authorities for understanding joint tortfeasor liability in UAE law.

It also demonstrates that a person's involvement in related wrongdoing does not automatically make that person liable for damage that occurred before their own conduct contributed to it.

24. Case Law 2 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation No. 339 of 2009

Principle

The case concerned construction defects and the responsibility of professional participants.

The Court applied Article 291 and allocated responsibility between the consultant and contractor.

Importance

The decision demonstrates that:

Multiple professionals can contribute to one defect;

Liability can be allocated between them;

The court can use equal allocation where appropriate.

It is particularly useful for construction-law disputes.

25. Case Law 3 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Appeal No. 167

Principle

The UAE Ministry of Justice case record concerns damage to an offshore oil-field structure caused by the interaction of a tug and a towed dredger.

The Court treated the tug and dredger as direct actors in the harmful event and held that their respective responsibility could be allocated under Article 291.

The judgment recognized the court's authority to impose equal, joint or several responsibility according to the circumstances.

Importance

This is a strong example of concurrent physical causation.

It demonstrates that two separate physical acts can combine to produce one indivisible injury.

26. Case Law 4 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 113 of 2023

Principle

The Court reaffirmed that, where several persons are responsible for a harmful act, Article 291 permits responsibility to be allocated according to each person's share or imposed equally, jointly or severally.

The case also addressed proof of damage, causation and the court's evaluation of expert evidence.

Importance

The decision illustrates that:

Fault must be established;

Damage must be established;

Causation must connect the conduct with the loss;

Expert evidence can assist the court;

Multiple responsible parties can be treated under Article 291.

27. Case Law 5 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2022

Principle

The case concerned medical-treatment responsibility involving multiple parties.

The Court accepted that several persons could potentially be responsible for the same harmful act and addressed the relationship between direct responsibility and vicarious responsibility.

Importance

The case demonstrates the practical operation of multiple-defendant liability in professional-negligence disputes.

It also shows the importance of establishing:

Fault;

Relationship of supervision;

Causation;

Actual responsibility for the harmful conduct.

28. Case Law 6 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Judgment No. 21 of 2020

This authority concerns a real-estate dispute involving delayed performance and the consequences of subsequent performance.

Principle

The Court emphasized the importance of examining the actual state of performance and the factual circumstances when determining the appropriate civil remedy.

Relevance to contribution

Although not a pure contribution case, it illustrates the broader UAE approach that liability and remedy depend upon the actual causal and factual circumstances rather than merely the existence of a contractual or legal relationship.

It is therefore useful as supporting jurisprudence on causation and allocation of responsibility.

29. Case Law 7 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Appeal No. 176 of 2008 (Commercial)

This case concerned contractual performance and the application of the former Civil Code's liability provisions.

Principle

The Court examined contractual duties, performance and the consequences of non-performance within the relevant factual and legal framework.

Relevance

The case is useful where a dispute contains both:

contractual responsibility; and

tortious responsibility.

Correct classification is important because the applicable legal rules can differ.

30. Case Law 8 — Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2022] EWHC 529 (Comm)

This is an English High Court decision applying UAE-law arguments concerning multiple wrongdoers.

Principle

The Court considered Article 291 and explained that UAE law approaches multiple wrongdoers through its statutory harmful-act framework.

It rejected the proposition that UAE law automatically treats every participant in a broad conspiracy as liable for every loss regardless of when or how that participant contributed to the damage.

Importance

The case is particularly valuable for cross-border disputes involving:

Fraud;

Multiple defendants;

UAE governing law;

Causation;

Article 291.

31. Case Law 9 — Union Properties PJSC & Anor v Trinkler & Partners Ltd & Others [2026] ADGMCFI 0010

This is an important recent ADGM Court decision discussing UAE-law principles concerning multiple persons responsible for harm.

The Court considered Article 291 of the former UAE Civil Code and specifically discussed Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Appeal No. 309 of 2016.

The judgment emphasized that a person's participation must be causally connected to the same damage. It rejected the proposition that someone who joined wrongdoing only after the loss had already occurred would automatically become jointly liable for that earlier loss under Article 291.

Importance

This provides a useful modern illustration of:

Causation;

Timing of participation;

Unity of harm;

Joint liability;

Limits of collective responsibility.

Because the case concerned the former Article 291, it should be read together with current Article 253.

32. Case-Law Summary

33. Important Distinction: Joint Tortfeasors vs Independent Tortfeasors

Not every case involving multiple defendants is technically the same.

Joint tortfeasors

Their conduct is sufficiently connected to the same harmful act or harm.

Several independent tortfeasors

Their conduct may be independent, but their separate acts contribute to the same damage.

The court must therefore examine:

Whether the acts were connected;

Whether they contributed to the same harm;

Whether there is unity of damage;

Whether separate causation can be identified.

The UAE statutory framework gives the court flexibility to allocate responsibility rather than imposing an automatic mathematical formula.

34. Joint Liability and Contractual Relationships

A tort claim can arise even where the parties also have contractual relationships.

For example:

Employer

↓

Contractor

↓

Subcontractor

↓

Defective work

The claimant may have:

Contractual claims;

Tortious claims;

Statutory claims.

The court must identify the correct legal basis for each claim.

This is particularly important because UAE jurisprudence distinguishes contractual liability from tortious liability in determining the applicable legal framework.

35. Contribution in Construction Defect Litigation

Suppose a building develops major structural defects.

The parties are:

Contractor;

Structural engineer;

Architect;

Subcontractor.

The court may proceed as follows:

Step 1

Identify the defect.

Step 2

Establish causation.

Step 3

Determine the conduct of each party.

Step 4

Determine whether each party contributed to the same damage.

Step 5

Determine proportional responsibility.

Step 6

Consider whether equal or joint and several liability should be imposed.

Step 7

Determine the amount of compensation.

This framework is consistent with the statutory approach represented by current Article 253.

36. Evidence Required for Contribution

A contribution claim can require:

Documentary evidence

Contracts;

Technical specifications;

Correspondence;

Invoices;

Inspection reports;

Notices;

Emails;

Meeting minutes.

Expert evidence

Engineering reports;

Medical reports;

Accounting reports;

Technical causation analysis.

Witness evidence

Testimony concerning conduct;

Knowledge;

Instructions;

Supervision;

Events.

Digital evidence

Emails;

Electronic records;

System logs;

Messages;

Digital transaction records.

37. Defences to Contribution

A person accused of being a joint tortfeasor may argue:

1. No fault

The defendant did not breach the relevant legal duty.

2. No causation

The defendant's conduct did not cause the damage.

3. Different damage

The defendant caused a different loss from that caused by the other defendants.

4. Intervening cause

An independent event broke the causal connection.

5. Claimant's contribution

The claimant contributed to or aggravated the damage.

6. Limitation

The claim may be time-barred under applicable limitation rules.

7. Lack of legal responsibility

The defendant had no legal duty or legally relevant relationship to the harmful event.

38. Current Limitation Rule

The new Civil Transactions Law contains a specific limitation provision for harmful-act compensation claims.

Article 258 provides, in substance, a three-year period from the date on which the injured party becomes aware of the damage and the responsible person, subject to the statutory qualifications, together with an outer fifteen-year period from the occurrence of the harmful act.

This can become important in contribution disputes because the claimant and the responsible parties may dispute:

When the damage became known;

When the responsible person became known;

Whether criminal proceedings affect limitation;

When an internal recourse claim arose.

The applicable transitional rules must also be considered where the harmful event predates the new law.

39. Practical Example

Facts

A building collapses because:

Contractor A used defective materials;

Engineer B failed to detect the defect;

Consultant C negligently approved the relevant work.

Damage:

AED 6 million

The court finds:

A = 50%;

B = 30%;

C = 20%.

Proportional allocation

A:

AED 3 million

B:

AED 1.8 million

C:

AED 1.2 million

If the circumstances justify joint and several liability, the claimant's external recovery rights may be broader than these internal shares.

The party who pays more than its final allocated share may then seek appropriate recourse against the other responsible parties.

40. Relationship Between Compensation and Contribution

The claimant's compensation is generally concerned with:

How much harm did the claimant suffer?

Contribution is concerned with:

How should that liability be distributed among the persons responsible?

These are two separate calculations.

First calculation

Determine:

Claimant's legally recoverable loss

Second calculation

Determine:

Each responsible person's share

This distinction prevents courts from confusing the claimant's total damage with the internal distribution of liability.

41. Current UAE Legal Framework — Quick Revision

For an examination or legal research answer, remember:

Article 246

General liability for harm.

Article 247

Direct and causative/consequential harm.

Article 249

External causes.

Article 253

Multiple persons responsible for harm and contributory conduct of the injured person.

Article 254

Moral harm.

Article 255

Loss and lost profit.

Article 256

Forms and assessment of compensation.

Article 258

Limitation of harmful-act compensation claims.

These provisions are part of the 2025 Civil Transactions Law currently applicable from 1 June 2026.

42. Difference Between Contribution and Indemnity

The terminology should therefore be used carefully.

43. Importance of Article 253

Article 253 is significant because it gives the UAE court a flexible mechanism for dealing with multi-party harm.

It allows the court to move between:

Proportional responsibility

↓

Equal responsibility

↓

Joint and several responsibility

depending upon the circumstances and evidence.

This avoids a rigid rule that every multiple-defendant case must automatically be divided equally.

44. Key Principles

The principal rules can be summarized as follows:

Multiple persons may be responsible for one harmful event.

Each person's conduct must have a legally relevant causal connection to the harm.

Unity of harm is important for joint liability.

Current Article 253 governs multiple persons responsible for harm.

The starting point is responsibility according to each person's share.

The court may order equal responsibility.

The court may impose joint and several liability.

The claimant's own contribution may reduce compensation.

Expert evidence can be important in determining technical causation.

Internal contribution is distinct from the claimant's external right to compensation.

Construction disputes frequently involve contribution issues.

Old Article 291 cases remain useful but must be read against the current Article 253 framework.

45. Conclusion

Contribution between joint tortfeasors under UAE civil law is fundamentally concerned with the fair legal allocation of responsibility where several persons contribute to the same harm.

The modern statutory starting point is Article 253 of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which provides that when multiple persons are responsible for harm, each is liable according to their share, while the court may impose equal or joint and several liability.

The jurisprudence under the former Article 291 remains especially useful for understanding how UAE courts analyse:

Fault;

Causation;

Unity of harm;

Proportional responsibility;

Equal allocation;

Joint and several liability;

Construction defects;

Professional negligence;

Vicarious responsibility;

Internal recourse.

The central principle can be expressed as:

One harm + multiple legally responsible persons + causal contribution = judicial allocation of responsibility.

The most important authorities include Dubai Cassation Civil Appeal No. 309/2016, Abu Dhabi Cassation No. 339/2009, Dubai Cassation Appeal No. 167, Dubai Cassation Commercial Appeal No. 113/2023, Dubai Cassation Civil Appeal No. 9/2022, ADCB v Shetty, and the recent Union Properties v Trinkler decision. These authorities demonstrate that UAE law does not treat every multi-defendant situation as automatically equal: the nature of each person's conduct, causal contribution and the unity of the resulting harm remain central.

Exam formula:

Multiple Tortfeasors → Fault/Duty → Causation → Unity of Harm → Share of Responsibility → Proportional/Equal/Joint Liability → Compensation → Contribution/Recourse.