Below is a current-law treatment of force majeure before UAE courts, with an importan

CIVIL LAW AND UAE — FORCE MAJEURE APPLICATION IN UAE COURTS

1. Introduction

Force majeure is one of the most important doctrines governing contractual non-performance in UAE civil law.

In simple terms, force majeure arises when an external, exceptional and uncontrollable event makes contractual performance impossible, rather than merely difficult, expensive or commercially undesirable.

The UAE approach is particularly important because force majeure is not merely a contractual concept. It has a statutory foundation in the Civil Transactions Law.

Under the current Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective from 1 June 2026, Article 236 provides that where, in a bilateral contract, force majeure makes performance of an obligation impossible, the corresponding obligations are extinguished and the contract is automatically rescinded. The provision also expressly deals with partial and temporary impossibility. (LEXAI)

The traditional UAE judicial approach has been strict: hardship is not the same as impossibility.

2. Meaning of Force Majeure

Force majeure literally conveys the idea of a superior external force.

For UAE civil-law purposes, it generally refers to an event that:

Is external to the contracting party;

Was unforeseeable at the time of contracting;

Cannot reasonably be avoided or overcome;

Is beyond the party's control; and

Makes contractual performance impossible or, where the statute permits, temporarily or partially impossible.

Flash formula

External Event + Unforeseeable + Unavoidable + Causal Link + Impossibility = Force Majeure

The courts do not normally accept a mere statement that an event was serious or commercially damaging.

3. Current Statutory Framework — Article 236

The most important current provision is Article 236 of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025.

Its structure can be divided into three situations.

A. Complete impossibility

Where force majeure makes performance impossible:

the corresponding obligation is extinguished; and

the bilateral contract is automatically rescinded.

B. Partial impossibility

Where only part of the obligation becomes impossible:

the corresponding part of the obligation may be extinguished; or

either party may request judicial rescission of the contract.

C. Temporary impossibility

Where impossibility is temporary in a continuing contract:

the corresponding obligation may be extinguished temporarily;

the contract may be modified; or

judicial rescission may be requested.

This is an important development because the current Code expressly recognises different consequences depending on the extent and duration of impossibility. (LEXAI)

4. Force Majeure Versus Hardship

This is one of the most important examination distinctions.

Force Majeure

Performance becomes impossible.

Consequence:

The law can extinguish the affected obligation and, under Article 236, automatically rescind the bilateral contract in the case of impossibility.

Hardship / Exceptional Circumstances

Performance remains possible, but becomes excessively onerous and threatens serious loss.

The current Article 224 deals with exceptional general circumstances that could not have been foreseen at the time of contracting and make performance excessively onerous. The court may, after balancing the interests of the parties, reduce the onerous obligation to a reasonable level or order rescission. (LEXAI)

Simple distinction

Exam sentence

Force majeure is an impossibility doctrine; hardship is an excessive-onerousness doctrine.

5. Why UAE Courts Apply Force Majeure Strictly

Force majeure interferes with the principle that contracts are binding.

A party cannot normally escape its contractual obligations simply because:

prices increased;

financing became difficult;

profits disappeared;

the transaction became commercially unattractive;

the project became more expensive;

suppliers became unreliable; or

performance became inconvenient.

The central question is:

Did the external event actually prevent the contractual performance, or did it merely make performance more difficult?

UAE jurisprudence has repeatedly emphasised the requirement of actual impossibility. (Al Tamimi & Company)

6. Element One — External Event

The event must normally arise from circumstances outside the control of the party invoking force majeure.

Examples may include:

war;

government prohibition;

extraordinary natural disaster;

certain pandemics;

destruction of essential property;

extraordinary governmental restrictions;

other objectively uncontrollable events.

However, simply identifying a major external event is insufficient.

The claimant must connect the event to the specific contractual obligation.

7. Element Two — Unforeseeability

The event must generally have been unforeseeable when the contract was concluded.

This requirement is particularly important where a party entered into a contract after the relevant crisis had already become known.

Example

If a party signs a contract after a widely known government restriction has already been imposed, it becomes more difficult to argue that the restriction was an unforeseen force-majeure event.

The court therefore examines:

contract date;

event date;

knowledge of the parties;

surrounding circumstances;

regulatory information;

commercial context.

8. Element Three — Unavoidability

The party invoking force majeure must generally demonstrate that the consequences could not reasonably have been avoided or overcome.

This makes mitigation and alternative-performance evidence important.

Examples

A contractor may need to consider:

alternative suppliers;

alternative transportation;

substitute materials;

different workforce arrangements;

alternative delivery routes;

permitted alternative methods of performance.

The availability of reasonable alternatives can weaken a force-majeure argument.

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation's COVID-related jurisprudence illustrates the importance of proving the actual supply-chain connection rather than merely asserting that the pandemic disrupted international trade. (Lexology)

9. Element Four — Actual Impossibility

This is usually the central requirement.

A party should establish that the event made performance legally or factually impossible, rather than simply:

more expensive;

less profitable;

inconvenient;

commercially difficult;

delayed;

financially burdensome.

The distinction is fundamental.

Example

If a contractor can still obtain materials from another supplier but at a higher price, this may indicate hardship or increased cost, not necessarily force majeure.

If a government prohibition legally prevents the required activity from being performed at all, the impossibility argument becomes materially stronger.

10. Element Five — Causal Connection

The force-majeure event must be connected to the specific non-performance.

It is not enough to prove:

COVID existed.

The party must prove:

COVID → specific restriction/disruption → specific contractual impossibility → non-performance.

Similarly:

War → shipping prohibition → specific shipment could not be delivered → contractual performance became impossible.

This causal chain is often where force-majeure claims succeed or fail.

11. Element Six — Sole or Determinative Cause

UAE jurisprudence has repeatedly emphasised that the force-majeure event must be the decisive cause of the relevant non-performance or damage.

If the party was already in breach before the event, or the non-performance resulted from several independent causes including the party's own conduct, the force-majeure defence becomes substantially weaker.

This principle appears clearly in the COVID-related decisions and more recent Dubai decisions concerning construction delays. (Al Tamimi & Company)

12. CASE LAW

Case 1 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, Commercial Judgment No. 835 of 2021

Facts

A contractor sought to rely on COVID-19-related disruption as force majeure, particularly difficulties concerning the availability/importation of construction materials and equipment from China.

Decision

The Court applied a strict standard.

The pandemic could not simply be treated as force majeure because it caused inconvenience or commercial difficulty.

The party had to establish that performance was actually impossible and that the asserted disruption was genuinely connected with the contractual performance.

The claim failed because the evidence did not establish the necessary impossibility and sourcing connection. The fact that part of the works had already been performed also undermined the broad assertion of impossibility. (Lexology)

Principle

Commercial difficulty is not equivalent to legal impossibility.

Exam use

Use this case for:

unforeseeability;

impossibility;

construction contracts;

supply-chain disruption;

evidentiary burden.

13. Case 2 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, Commercial Judgment No. 512 of 2021

Facts

The dispute concerned a contract affected by COVID-19 and government restrictions.

The party seeking relief argued that the pandemic made contractual performance impossible.

Decision

The Court accepted that, on the particular evidence before it, the pandemic and governmental restrictions constituted a force-majeure event.

The Court relied on the former Article 273 framework, under which an event making performance impossible could extinguish the corresponding obligation and result in contractual rescission.

Importantly, the Court stressed that force majeure had to be the relevant sole cause of the inability/damage relied upon. (Lexology)

Principle

A pandemic can constitute force majeure, but only where the statutory conditions are actually proved.

Exam use

This is especially useful for demonstrating that:

COVID-19 ≠ automatically force majeure

but:

COVID-19 + government restrictions + proven impossibility + causal connection = potentially force majeure.

14. Case 3 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 479 of 2021

Facts

The case concerned contractual performance during the COVID-19 period.

The party invoking force majeure attempted to rely on the pandemic and related circumstances.

Decision

The Dubai Court of Cassation emphasised that force majeure operates where the event makes contractual performance impossible.

The mere existence of COVID-19 did not automatically establish force majeure.

The specific contractual performance and actual effect of the pandemic had to be examined. (Al Tamimi & Company)

Principle

The existence of a global crisis does not itself prove force majeure.

Exam use

Use this case for:

causal connection;

impossibility;

COVID-19;

strict interpretation.

15. Case 4 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation, Commercial Judgment No. 1189 of 2021

This authority has subsequently been cited in UAE proceedings concerning COVID-19 and force majeure.

In the later ADGM CFI decision [2024] ADGMCFI 0011, the court recorded the parties' reliance on Abu Dhabi Commercial Cassation No. 1189/2021 concerning the proposition that, under the former Article 273 framework, an unforeseen event must be the relevant cause rendering performance impossible. (ADGM Assets)

Principle

The case is useful for the proposition that:

an unforeseen event alone is insufficient;

the event must have the legally relevant causal effect on performance;

force majeure must be distinguished from a general delay event.

Exam use

Particularly useful for:

COVID-related delay;

causation;

construction;

proof of impossibility.

16. Case 5 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 174 of 2023

Facts

The dispute involved a real-estate project where the party invoking force majeure relied upon COVID-19 as the explanation for delay.

Decision

The Dubai Court of Cassation rejected the force-majeure defence because the evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate that COVID-19 was the direct cause of the contractual delay.

The Court emphasised that the delay could not simply be attributed to the pandemic without proof establishing the required causal relationship.

The party's own conduct and ability to perform were relevant considerations. (dralraeesilegal.com)

Principle

A party cannot convert an ordinary contractual delay into force majeure merely by identifying an extraordinary event occurring during the same period.

Exam use

Excellent authority for:

causation;

construction delay;

real estate;

evidence;

debtor's own fault.

17. Case 6 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 1 of 2024

Facts

The dispute concerned shipping affected by the Russia-Ukraine war.

The party relying on force majeure argued that the outbreak of war prevented contractual shipment.

Decision

The courts accepted the force-majeure argument on the particular evidence.

The expert evidence established that the war was the sole reason for the shipping delay, and the finding was upheld through the appellate process. (Turtl)

Principle

This case is important because it demonstrates that UAE courts do not reject force majeure as a matter of principle.

Rather:

A force-majeure claim can succeed when the event, impossibility and causal connection are convincingly proved.

Exam use

Use this case as the positive counterpart to Cases 835/2021, 479/2021 and 174/2023.

18. Case 7 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 480 of 2024

Facts

The dispute concerned construction delays and an attempt to attribute the delays to force majeure.

Decision

The court considered expert evidence concerning the causes of delay.

The evidence indicated that the delays were not solely attributable to force majeure but also involved the contractors' conduct.

The force-majeure defence therefore did not eliminate liability for the affected contractual consequences.

The decision also illustrates that obligations unaffected by the force-majeure event remain relevant and may continue to require performance. (Turtl)

Principle

Force majeure does not automatically excuse every obligation contained in a contract.

Exam use

Useful for:

construction disputes;

expert evidence;

causation;

partial performance;

contractual penalties.

19. Case 8 — Al Ahmar v Radwan [2024] ADGMCFI 0011

Although this is an ADGM Court decision rather than an onshore Dubai or Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation judgment, it is useful as a UAE judicial illustration of how COVID-related force-majeure arguments are analysed.

The judgment involved delayed delivery of off-plan property and considered COVID as a potential force-majeure event. It cited Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation authorities including Commercial Nos. 1189/2021 and 1104/2021. (ADGM Assets)

Principle

The important lesson is that the court distinguishes:

force majeure;

delay;

contractual responsibility;

evidence concerning the actual effect of COVID.

Qualification

ADGM is a separate common-law-based judicial system within the UAE. Therefore, this decision should be used as persuasive/illustrative UAE authority, not as a direct precedent for an onshore UAE Civil Transactions Law claim.

20. What the Case Law Shows

The cases collectively establish an important pattern.

A. COVID can qualify

Abu Dhabi Cassation 512/2021 demonstrates that a pandemic and associated government restrictions can, on appropriate facts, satisfy the force-majeure test.

B. COVID does not automatically qualify

Abu Dhabi Cassation 835/2021 and Dubai Cassation 479/2021 show that the existence of the pandemic alone is insufficient.

C. Evidence is critical

Dubai Cassation 174/2023 demonstrates that the claimant must establish the direct causal connection.

D. War can qualify

Dubai Cassation 1/2024 demonstrates that war-related disruption can satisfy the test where the evidence establishes actual impossibility and causation.

E. Mixed causes can defeat the defence

Dubai Cassation 480/2024 demonstrates the importance of determining whether the force-majeure event was genuinely responsible for the delay.

21. Force Majeure and Contractual Clauses

The first document a UAE court will normally need to examine is the contract itself.

A contractual force-majeure clause may define:

covered events;

notice requirements;

documentation;

mitigation;

suspension;

termination;

extension of time;

allocation of risk;

exclusions;

financial consequences.

However, a contractual clause does not mean that every event mentioned in the clause automatically establishes a successful defence.

The party must still establish the relevant contractual conditions and the factual connection between the event and the non-performance.

22. Notice Requirement

Many commercial contracts require the affected party to give prompt notice.

A proper notice should identify:

The force-majeure event;

Date of occurrence;

Contractual provision invoked;

Specific obligation affected;

Nature of the impossibility;

Expected duration;

Steps taken to mitigate;

Supporting documents;

Expected contractual consequence.

Practical formula

Event + Date + Clause + Affected Obligation + Causation + Evidence + Mitigation

23. Evidence Required in UAE Courts

A force-majeure claim should normally be supported by contemporaneous evidence.

Useful evidence includes:

government orders;

official closure notices;

import/export restrictions;

shipping records;

supplier correspondence;

purchase orders;

customs documents;

construction records;

expert reports;

project schedules;

correspondence between parties;

insurance documents;

transport records;

workforce records;

regulatory decisions.

The cases demonstrate that courts focus on the actual effect of the event, not merely its existence. (Lexology)

24. Role of Expert Evidence

Expert evidence can become extremely important in:

construction disputes;

supply-chain disputes;

engineering contracts;

shipping;

financial loss;

project delays;

technical impossibility.

An expert may determine:

original contractual programme;

actual delay;

critical-path effect;

alternative procurement;

availability of substitute materials;

causal contribution of different events;

whether the force-majeure event was the decisive cause.

But the court decides the legal issue of whether the statutory requirements for force majeure have been met.

25. Force Majeure and Construction Contracts

Construction disputes are particularly susceptible to force-majeure arguments.

Typical alleged events include:

material shortages;

government shutdowns;

import restrictions;

war;

natural disasters;

pandemics;

transportation disruption;

labour restrictions.

But a contractor normally needs to establish more than delay.

Contractor's proof should address:

What was required?

↓

What external event occurred?

↓

When did it occur?

↓

What exact contractual obligation became impossible?

↓

Why could the contractor not avoid the effect?

↓

Were alternatives available?

↓

Did the contractor contribute to the delay?

↓

What loss resulted?

This evidence-based approach is consistent with the UAE cases involving COVID and construction delays. (Lexology)

26. Force Majeure and Real Estate

Real-estate disputes frequently involve force majeure arguments concerning:

delayed handover;

construction interruption;

government restrictions;

financing;

supply shortages;

labour disruption.

The key question remains whether the relevant event actually made performance impossible.

Important warning

Financing difficulty ≠ automatically force majeure.

Market decline ≠ automatically force majeure.

Reduced profitability ≠ automatically force majeure.

Construction delay ≠ automatically force majeure.

The factual causal chain must be proved.

27. Force Majeure and Payment Obligations

Particular care is required with monetary obligations.

The basic question is:

Did the force-majeure event actually make payment impossible, or did it merely make payment financially difficult?

This distinction is especially important in comparative UAE analysis.

For example:

loss of revenue;

reduced sales;

increased borrowing costs;

cash-flow pressure;

inability to obtain expected financing

do not automatically establish legal impossibility.

The court will examine the exact contractual obligation and applicable statutory or contractual provisions.

28. Temporary Force Majeure

The current Article 236 expressly recognises temporary impossibility in continuing contracts.

This is significant.

If performance is temporarily impossible, the legal consequence need not necessarily be permanent termination.

Depending on the circumstances, the parties may rely upon:

temporary extinguishment/suspension of the affected obligation;

contractual modification;

judicial rescission.

The duration and practical effect of the event therefore matter.

29. Partial Force Majeure

The current Code also expressly addresses partial impossibility.

Suppose a contract contains ten separable obligations and only two become impossible because of the external event.

The court does not necessarily treat the entire contractual relationship as though every obligation became impossible.

Article 236 permits treatment of the corresponding impossible part and provides a mechanism for judicial rescission where appropriate. (LEXAI)

Flash rule

Partial impossibility → partial consequences, unless the circumstances justify broader rescission.

30. Force Majeure and Compensation

A successful force-majeure defence can affect the availability of damages for non-performance.

The logic is straightforward:

If the law recognises that the contractual obligation became impossible because of force majeure, the affected party may not be treated in the same way as a party that simply chose not to perform.

But compensation questions must still be analysed separately.

The court may need to determine:

whether the event actually constituted force majeure;

which obligation was affected;

when impossibility began;

when it ended;

whether some obligations remained performable;

whether loss arose from another cause;

whether contractual risk allocation changes the result.

31. Force Majeure Versus Frustration

The terms should not automatically be treated as identical.

Under onshore UAE civil law, force majeure has a statutory foundation.

In common-law systems, frustration is a distinct doctrine.

This distinction becomes particularly important when dealing with DIFC or ADGM contracts.

For example, the DIFC Court has expressly distinguished statutory force majeure under Article 82 of the DIFC Contract Law from the English-law doctrine of frustration. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore:

UAE onshore Civil Transactions Law → statutory force majeure

DIFC → separate DIFC statutory contractual regime

ADGM → common-law contractual framework

The governing law and forum must therefore be identified before applying the doctrine.

32. DIFC Comparison — Article 82

DIFC law provides a particularly useful comparative example.

Article 82 of the DIFC Contract Law excuses non-performance where:

the impediment is beyond the party's control;

it could not reasonably have been taken into account when the contract was concluded;

it could not reasonably have been avoided or overcome.

It also expressly excludes a mere obligation to pay from the statutory force-majeure excuse.

The recent DIFC decision concerning flood-related disruption confirms the importance of distinguishing payment obligations from obligations to perform acts or services. (DIFC Courts)

This is a DIFC-specific rule and should not simply be transplanted into an onshore UAE Civil Transactions Law analysis.

33. Force Majeure and Floods — Recent DIFC Illustration

The recent DIFC litigation involving the Dubai floods provides a useful modern illustration.

The defendants argued that flooding caused financial hardship and prevented performance under a lease.

The DIFC Court distinguished between:

genuine force majeure affecting performance of an act/service; and

a mere obligation to pay rent.

The Court held that Article 82 did not provide a force-majeure defence to the mere payment obligation in that case. (DIFC Courts)

Important qualification

This is a DIFC Contract Law case, not an onshore UAE Civil Transactions Law case.

34. Burden of Proof

The party invoking force majeure should be prepared to establish the necessary factual elements.

A useful litigation checklist is:

1. Event

What exactly happened?

2. Externality

Was it outside the party's control?

3. Foreseeability

Could the event reasonably have been anticipated when the contract was concluded?

4. Avoidability

Could its effects have been prevented or overcome?

5. Impossibility

What precise obligation became impossible?

6. Causation

Was the event the actual cause of the non-performance?

7. Timing

Did the event occur before the breach?

8. Mitigation

What steps were taken to reduce the impact?

9. Contract

What does the force-majeure clause say?

10. Evidence

What documents prove the claim?

35. Common Reasons UAE Force-Majeure Claims Fail

1. Mere financial difficulty

The party says:

"I could not afford performance."

That does not automatically establish force majeure.

2. Increased cost

A transaction becoming much more expensive does not necessarily make performance impossible.

3. General economic crisis

A general crisis must be connected to the specific obligation.

4. No causal evidence

The party identifies a major event but cannot establish how it prevented performance.

5. Pre-existing breach

If the party was already in breach before the force-majeure event, the defence becomes substantially weaker.

6. Alternative performance was possible

If reasonable alternatives existed, the impossibility argument may fail.

7. Insufficient notice

Where the contract requires notice, failure to comply may create additional contractual difficulties.

8. Unsupported expert conclusions

A party cannot simply rely on an expert's conclusion without underlying factual evidence.

36. Practical UAE Court Test

A court can effectively ask the following questions:

Question 1

What event occurred?

Question 2

Was it external and beyond control?

Question 3

Was it unforeseeable when the contract was concluded?

Question 4

Could the consequences reasonably have been avoided?

Question 5

What exact obligation became impossible?

Question 6

Was the event the actual cause of non-performance?

Question 7

Was there another cause, including the claimant's own conduct?

Question 8

Was the impossibility total, partial or temporary?

Question 9

What does the contract's force-majeure clause provide?

Question 10

What legal consequence follows under Article 236?

37. Current-Law Effect of Article 236

The new Code is especially important because it expressly accommodates:

Complete impossibility

→ corresponding obligations extinguished
→ automatic rescission of bilateral contract

Partial impossibility

→ corresponding obligation may be extinguished
→ court rescission may be requested

Temporary impossibility

→ affected obligation may be extinguished temporarily
→ contract may be modified
→ court rescission may be requested

This gives the court and parties a more structured framework than simply treating every force-majeure situation as an all-or-nothing question. (LEXAI)

38. Historical Case Law and the 2026 Code

An important research point is that the major UAE force-majeure cases discussed above were decided under the former Federal Law No. 5 of 1985.

The former Article 273 contained the principal force-majeure rule.

The new Article 236 of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 substantially carries forward the central concept of force majeure making performance impossible, while expressly addressing partial and temporary impossibility. (Afridi & Angell)

Therefore, in a case arising under the current Code:

Use the current Article 236 as the statutory starting point, and use older Cassation decisions as interpretive guidance where their principles remain compatible with the new Code and applicable transitional rules.

39. Master Case-Law Table

40. Examination-Ready Answer

Force majeure under UAE civil law refers to an extraordinary external event beyond the control of a contracting party which, subject to the statutory requirements, renders contractual performance impossible.

Under the current Article 236 of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, if force majeure makes performance of an obligation in a bilateral contract impossible, the corresponding obligations are extinguished and the contract is automatically rescinded. The current Code also expressly regulates partial and temporary impossibility.

UAE courts apply the doctrine strictly. The party invoking force majeure must establish the relevant external event, unforeseeability, inability to avoid or overcome its consequences, actual impossibility and the necessary causal connection between the event and non-performance.

The COVID-19 cases demonstrate that the pandemic was not automatically a force-majeure event in every contract. Abu Dhabi Cassation 835/2021 rejected a claim where actual impossibility was not adequately established, while Abu Dhabi Cassation 512/2021 accepted force majeure on particular facts involving COVID-19 and governmental restrictions. Dubai Cassation 479/2021 similarly demonstrates that the mere existence of the pandemic is insufficient. Later decisions, including Dubai Cassation 174/2023, emphasise direct causation, while Dubai Cassation 1/2024 illustrates that war-related disruption can succeed where the evidence establishes that the war was the decisive cause of non-performance. Dubai Cassation 480/2024 demonstrates the importance of expert evidence and the existence of competing causes of delay.

Force majeure must also be distinguished from hardship. Under current Article 224, exceptional unforeseen circumstances making performance excessively onerous may permit judicial adjustment or rescission even though performance remains possible. Force majeure, by contrast, is principally concerned with impossibility.

Therefore, the central UAE civil-law rule can be remembered as:

Serious event alone is not enough; the event must legally and factually prevent the specific contractual performance, and that causal connection must be proved.

41. Ultra-Rapid Revision

Force Majeure =

External

Unforeseeable

Unavoidable

Beyond Control

Causal Connection

Impossibility

Current Article

Article 236 — Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025

Hardship

Article 224

Possible performance + excessive burden → judicial adjustment/rescission

Complete Impossibility

Obligation extinguished + bilateral contract automatically rescinded

Partial Impossibility

Affected part extinguished / judicial rescission possible

Temporary Impossibility

Temporary relief / modification / possible rescission

COVID Cases

835/2021 → insufficient proof of impossibility

512/2021 → force majeure accepted on particular facts

479/2021 → pandemic alone insufficient

174/2023 → causation not proved

War Case

Dubai Cassation 1/2024 → war accepted where proven as decisive cause

Construction Case

Dubai Cassation 480/2024 → competing causes + expert evidence matter

FINAL CONCLUSION

The UAE courts approach force majeure as a strict exception to contractual responsibility. The central inquiry is not whether an event was dramatic, unexpected or economically damaging, but whether it actually prevented the particular contractual performance.

The transition from the former Article 273 to current Article 236 should therefore be understood as a continuation of the core UAE principle with a more expressly structured treatment of complete, partial and temporary impossibility.

For litigation purposes, the strongest force-majeure case is one supported by a clear chronology, contractual wording, objective evidence, expert analysis where necessary, proof of causation, evidence of mitigation, and a demonstration that the relevant obligation truly became impossible rather than merely more expensive or commercially inconvenient.

In one line for revision: UAE force majeure is about proven impossibility, not merely hardship; Article 236 is the current statutory starting point, while the older Cassation cases explain the strict judicial test.