Civil Law and UAE Maritime Claims

1. Introduction

Maritime claims are civil and commercial claims arising from the ownership, operation, navigation, financing, chartering, carriage, repair, salvage, collision, insurance or employment of ships.

The UAE maritime regime is now principally governed by Federal Decree-Law No. 43 of 2023 on Maritime Law, which came into force on 29 March 2024 and replaced Federal Law No. 26 of 1981 on Commercial Maritime Law. The new legislation substantially modernised the rules concerning vessel registration, maritime debts, ship arrest, privileged debts, collisions, carriage and limitation of liability. (Littdb)

For civil-law purposes, maritime claims are important because they combine:

contractual liability;

tort/delict liability;

property rights;

security interests;

insurance;

procedural remedies;

international jurisdiction;

arbitration; and

special rules relating to ships.

2. Meaning of a Maritime Claim

A maritime claim is a claim having a sufficiently direct connection with a ship or maritime activity.

Under the present UAE Maritime Law, the concept of “maritime debt” is particularly important because it determines whether a vessel may be subject to precautionary arrest.

Article 53(2) contains a closed list of maritime debts. It covers categories including claims arising from:

damage caused by a ship;

death or personal injury;

salvage;

charterparties;

carriage of goods;

loss or damage to cargo;

general average;

towage;

pilotage;

supplies to a ship;

construction or repair;

port charges;

crew wages and entitlements;

insurance premiums;

agency and brokerage;

ownership disputes;

co-ownership;

ship sale disputes; and

certain other maritime obligations. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

Thus, not every ordinary commercial debt owed by a shipowner is automatically a maritime debt capable of supporting ship arrest.

3. Main Sources of UAE Maritime Claims Law

The principal sources include:

A. UAE Maritime Law

Federal Decree-Law No. 43 of 2023 is the central maritime statute.

B. UAE Civil Transactions Law

The Civil Transactions Law continues to provide general principles concerning:

contractual obligations;

tort liability;

causation;

compensation;

force majeure;

damages;

good faith.

C. Civil Procedure Law

Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 governs procedural matters including:

precautionary measures;

jurisdiction;

enforcement;

appeals;

execution.

D. Arbitration legislation

Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration may become relevant where a charterparty, carriage contract, shipbuilding contract or other maritime agreement contains an arbitration clause.

4. Contractual Maritime Claims

Many maritime disputes arise from contracts.

Typical examples include:

charterparty disputes;

bills of lading;

ship-management agreements;

shipbuilding contracts;

ship-repair contracts;

towage contracts;

pilotage agreements;

agency agreements;

bunker-supply contracts;

marine insurance;

crew contracts.

A contractual claim normally requires examination of:

whether a valid contract exists;

the contractual obligations;

performance;

breach;

causation;

loss;

contractual limitations; and

applicable statutory maritime provisions.

5. Tortious Maritime Claims

Maritime liability is not limited to contract.

A shipowner or operator may face civil liability for damage caused to:

another vessel;

cargo;

port infrastructure;

offshore installations;

persons;

property;

marine facilities.

The general UAE civil-law principles of wrongful conduct, causation and compensation can become relevant where the special maritime provisions do not provide the complete answer.

This distinction was illustrated by UAE Federal Supreme Court jurisprudence concerning a vessel/tug incident in which the Court considered whether the special statutory rules on maritime collision applied or whether the general Civil Transactions Law rules on civil liability governed the claim. (eLaws)

6. Maritime Claims and Ship Arrest

One of the most important remedies is precautionary arrest of a vessel.

The purpose of arrest is generally to secure a maritime claim pending determination of the underlying dispute.

The current UAE regime allows arrest for the maritime debts specified by Article 53(2). The new law also allows, in specified circumstances, arrest of another vessel owned by the debtor—commonly called sister-ship arrest. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

The new regime therefore distinguishes between:

Maritime debt

↓

Precautionary arrest

↓

Substantive claim

↓

Judgment or arbitral award

↓

Enforcement

7. Case Law 1 — UAE Federal Supreme Court Ship-Arrest Judgment, 2016

Facts

A ship agency obtained an arrest order over a vessel at Khorfakkan Port and subsequently brought proceedings seeking approximately USD 5.32 million for support services, supplies, port charges and related expenses.

The claim was brought against the ship itself rather than its registered owners.

The Federal Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the claim because it had been filed against the vessel rather than its owners and because the statutory arrest procedures had not been properly followed. (Al Tamimi & Company)

Principle

The judgment established an important procedural distinction:

Arresting a ship as security does not mean that the ship itself becomes an ordinary legal person capable of being sued in the substantive claim.

The registered owner must be properly identified and sued.

Importance

The case demonstrates the importance of:

correct defendant identification;

proper arrest procedure;

statutory compliance;

distinction between security and substantive proceedings.

It is one of the most significant UAE Federal Supreme Court authorities concerning vessel arrest.

8. Case Law 2 — UAE Federal Supreme Court: Tug and Barge / Umm Shaif Offshore Structure Case

A UAE Federal Supreme Court decision considered damage caused when a tug and towed installation collided with a fixed offshore oil-field structure.

The claimant sought compensation for damage to the offshore structure.

The Court examined whether the special provisions on maritime collision applied.

It held that the statutory maritime-collision provisions required a collision between vessels or between a maritime vessel and an inland-navigation vessel. A collision with a fixed object, such as a pier, breakwater, rocks or an offshore structure, did not fall within that statutory definition.

Consequently, the Court applied the general civil-liability provisions, including Article 282 of the Civil Transactions Law. (eLaws)

Principle

Not every accident involving a ship is legally a “maritime collision” for purposes of the special maritime regime.

Importance

This case is extremely useful in determining whether a claim should be analysed under:

special maritime collision provisions; or

general UAE civil tort law.

9. Case Law 3 — UAE Federal Supreme Court: Tug-and-Towed Vessel Liability

In the same line of jurisprudence, the Federal Supreme Court examined the statutory requirements for treating both a tug and a towed vessel as ships for purposes of the special maritime liability regime.

The Court examined the statutory definition of a ship and the nature of the towed installation.

It concluded that the particular suction-cutter dredger was designed for work in protected shallow waters and was not a vessel designed or ordinarily prepared for maritime navigation in the relevant sense. Consequently, the special statutory provisions governing joint liability of tug and tow did not apply in the manner asserted. (eLaws)

Principle

The classification of an object as a ship is legally significant.

It may determine:

which liability regime applies;

whether collision provisions apply;

whether special maritime rules apply;

whether general tort law governs.

Importance

The case demonstrates that courts examine the legal characteristics and function of the craft, not merely its physical appearance.

10. Case Law 4 — DNB Bank ASA v Gulf Eyadah Corporation & Gulf Navigation Holding PJSC

DIFC Court of Appeal

This is one of the most important UAE cases involving maritime-sector parties and cross-border enforcement.

The dispute concerned recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment involving financial obligations connected with Gulf Navigation.

The DIFC Court of Appeal recognised the foreign judgment subject to the applicable DIFC enforcement framework.

Principle

Maritime and shipping-related commercial disputes can have a multi-jurisdictional enforcement lifecycle:

contract → dispute → foreign judgment → recognition → local enforcement.

Importance

The case demonstrates why maritime creditors must consider:

governing law;

jurisdiction;

arbitration;

recognition;

enforcement;

location of assets.

It is particularly relevant to international ship-finance and shipping disputes.

11. Case Law 5 — Gate Mena DMCC / Huobi Mena FZE v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd

DIFC Court of Appeal / Digital Economy Court

Although this case concerns digital assets rather than a traditional maritime accident, it is relevant to modern maritime claims because shipping increasingly involves:

digital asset payments;

electronic documentation;

blockchain;

automated transactions;

digital custody;

technology-based contractual obligations.

The DIFC courts examined contractual obligations relating to Bitcoin and the legal consequences of digital-asset custody and control.

The proceedings demonstrate that courts analyse the underlying contractual obligation, rather than allowing technological form alone to determine the legal result.

Principle

The technological method through which a commercial obligation is performed does not eliminate ordinary principles of contractual responsibility.

Maritime relevance

The same principle can apply to:

electronic bills of lading;

blockchain cargo records;

automated freight payments;

digital charterparty systems;

electronic delivery orders.

12. Case Law 6 — Deyaar Development PJSC v Taaleem PJSC

DIFC Court of Appeal

This case is important for determining whether contractual negotiations and conduct produced a binding legal agreement.

The court examined the words and conduct of the parties when determining contractual formation.

Principle

The existence and content of contractual obligations depend upon the applicable legal principles, not simply upon one party's subjective understanding.

Maritime relevance

The principle can apply to:

charterparties;

ship-management agreements;

booking arrangements;

electronic shipping instructions;

agency agreements;

settlement agreements.

It is particularly relevant where maritime parties dispute whether negotiations resulted in a binding contract.

13. Important Qualification on the Case Law

There is a major distinction between direct maritime authorities and cases that provide broader contractual or enforcement principles.

The strongest directly maritime UAE authority among the cases above is the Federal Supreme Court ship-arrest decision and the Federal Supreme Court tug/collision jurisprudence.

The DIFC cases provide broader principles concerning:

contractual obligations;

jurisdiction;

enforcement;

digital commercial transactions.

This distinction should be maintained in academic or legal writing rather than describing every DIFC commercial case as a direct UAE maritime precedent.

14. Collision Claims

Collision is one of the classic maritime claims.

The present Maritime Law contains a dedicated chapter on ship collision.

Article 235 provides that when a collision occurs between ships or between ships and vessels navigating inland waters, compensation for damage to ships, property and persons is determined under the collision provisions. (Littdb)

Potential losses include:

hull damage;

cargo damage;

repair costs;

loss of use;

personal injury;

death;

environmental consequences where legally recoverable;

consequential losses subject to applicable rules.

15. Fault in Collision

A collision dispute commonly requires examination of:

navigation;

speed;

lookout;

steering;

weather;

visibility;

compliance with navigation rules;

competence of crew;

condition of vessel;

communication;

causation.

Expert evidence can be particularly important.

A court may need to determine whether:

one vessel was entirely responsible;

both vessels contributed;

neither vessel was legally responsible because of an external event.

16. Collision with Fixed Objects

The Federal Supreme Court tug/offshore-structure case provides an important distinction.

Where a vessel collides with:

a pier;

breakwater;

offshore installation;

fixed platform;

other non-vessel structure,

the special maritime collision provisions may not necessarily apply.

The Court in the relevant case applied general civil liability principles instead. (eLaws)

Thus:

Ship ↔ Ship

may invoke special maritime collision provisions.

But:

Ship ↔ Fixed structure

may instead involve general civil liability.

17. Cargo Claims

Cargo claims commonly arise where goods are:

lost;

damaged;

contaminated;

delayed;

improperly handled;

incorrectly stored;

delivered to the wrong party.

Relevant evidence may include:

bill of lading;

charterparty;

cargo survey;

loading records;

discharge records;

photographs;

electronic tracking;

temperature records;

warehouse records;

expert reports.

The carrier's contractual and statutory responsibilities must be considered together.

18. Charterparty Claims

A charterparty allocates rights and obligations between shipowner and charterer.

Important disputes include:

hire;

freight;

demurrage;

off-hire;

laytime;

seaworthiness;

speed;

deviation;

cargo obligations;

bunker costs;

port charges;

termination;

withdrawal;

indemnity.

Where the charterparty contains an arbitration clause, the substantive maritime dispute may proceed through arbitration while a UAE court may become involved in interim security measures such as vessel arrest where the statutory requirements are met.

19. Salvage Claims

Salvage concerns assistance provided to a vessel or maritime property in danger.

The claimant may seek remuneration for:

saving a vessel;

saving cargo;

preventing environmental harm;

rescue operations;

towage associated with peril.

The Maritime Law specifically recognises salvage as a maritime debt capable of supporting the relevant statutory remedies. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

20. General Average

General average is a specialised maritime mechanism under which extraordinary expenditure or sacrifice intentionally incurred for the common safety of a maritime adventure may be apportioned among the relevant interests.

For example:

cargo sacrifice;

emergency expenditure;

extraordinary measures to save the voyage.

A dispute may involve:

whether a general-average event occurred;

whether the expenditure was reasonable;

whether the sacrifice was intentional;

valuation;

contribution;

insurance.

21. Crew Claims

Maritime claims also include claims by:

master;

officers;

crew members.

These may concern:

wages;

contractual entitlements;

repatriation;

employment-related expenses.

The new Maritime Law expressly includes crew wages and entitlements among maritime debts. It also expands the categories to include certain crew repatriation and social-insurance related amounts. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

22. Ship Mortgage Claims

A ship can serve as security for financing.

Mortgage disputes may concern:

registration;

priority;

default;

enforcement;

sale;

distribution of proceeds.

The new Maritime Law recognises ship mortgages while establishing a statutory priority framework.

The important principle is that contractual security and statutory maritime priority are not necessarily the same thing.

23. Privileged Debts

The new Maritime Law uses the concept of “Privileged Debts over a Ship.”

The statutory priority categories include, among others:

specified legal and preservation expenses;

crew employment claims;

salvage and certain general-average claims;

compensation arising from collision and maritime accidents;

certain contracts made by the master;

cargo claims;

pilotage claims; and

certain construction or repair claims. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

This ranking becomes especially important when a vessel is sold and the proceeds must be distributed among competing creditors.

24. Sister-Ship Arrest

One major change under the 2023 Maritime Law concerns sister-ship arrest.

Article 54 permits arrest, in specified circumstances, of the vessel to which the maritime debt relates or another vessel owned by the debtor when the arrest application is submitted.

However, statutory exceptions apply, particularly to certain disputes concerning:

ownership;

co-ownership;

possession/use;

ship mortgage;

ship sale. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

This gives maritime creditors a potentially broader security mechanism than under the previous framework.

25. Arrest of a Bareboat-Chartered Vessel

The new law also contains rules concerning arrest of a vessel under a bareboat charter in circumstances where the maritime debt is attributable to the charterer.

This is important because a maritime claim may arise from the activities of a charterer rather than the registered shipowner.

The new regime therefore pays greater attention to:

owner;

bareboat charterer;

time charterer;

operational responsibility;

identity of the maritime debtor.

26. Countersecurity

The new Maritime Law introduces an important protection for shipowners.

An arresting claimant may be required to provide countersecurity for consequences associated with the arrest, including matters such as vessel safety and crew-related expenses.

This is intended to balance:

Creditor's right to security

against

Shipowner's protection against unjustified arrest. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

27. P&I Club Security

Another important development is recognition of P&I Club Letters of Undertaking as a potential form of security for releasing an arrested vessel, subject to the statutory and judicial requirements.

This reflects international maritime practice and can reduce the practical consequences of prolonged detention. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

28. Jurisdiction for Collision Claims

Article 240 of the new Maritime Law provides several potential jurisdictional bases for collision claims, including:

defendant's domicile;

vessel's registration port;

place of collision;

location where permissible attachment/arrest occurs.

The parties may also agree to arbitration. (Littdb)

This is particularly important because maritime disputes are frequently international.

29. Maritime Claims and Arbitration

A charterparty may provide:

“All disputes shall be referred to arbitration.”

That clause can determine the forum for the substantive dispute.

However, a claimant may still need UAE judicial assistance for:

vessel arrest;

preservation of evidence;

interim measures;

enforcement.

Therefore:

Arbitration of the merits and judicial security over the vessel can coexist.

The procedural relationship must be analysed carefully under the applicable maritime and arbitration legislation.

30. Limitation of Liability

Maritime law traditionally recognises special mechanisms limiting shipowner liability.

The modern UAE Maritime Law has introduced a statutory framework influenced by international limitation principles.

The policy behind limitation is to balance:

protection of maritime commerce;

availability of compensation;

insurance;

risk allocation;

economic viability of shipping operations.

Whether a particular claim is subject to limitation depends on:

type of claim;

statutory requirements;

conduct of the shipowner;

applicable exclusions;

relevant limitation mechanism.

31. Marine Insurance Claims

Marine insurance disputes can involve:

hull insurance;

cargo insurance;

liability insurance;

P&I coverage;

warranties;

disclosure;

seaworthiness;

navigation;

exclusions;

causation.

The insurer may argue:

“The loss falls within an exclusion.”

The insured may respond:

“The exclusion does not apply or has not been established.”

The court or tribunal must interpret the insurance contract alongside mandatory maritime and insurance principles.

32. Limitation Periods

Time limits are particularly important in maritime disputes.

A claimant should identify:

the applicable maritime limitation period;

the nature of the claim;

the date the cause of action arose;

contractual time bars;

statutory interruption/suspension provisions;

whether arbitration has been commenced.

Failure to commence proceedings within the applicable period can defeat an otherwise substantive claim.

33. Evidence in Maritime Claims

Maritime litigation is highly evidence-driven.

Important evidence includes:

ship logs;

voyage data recorder information;

AIS data;

bridge records;

engine-room records;

weather reports;

bills of lading;

charterparty;

survey reports;

photographs;

CCTV;

port records;

customs documents;

cargo records;

expert reports.

Electronic evidence is increasingly important in proving:

vessel position;

speed;

navigation;

communications;

cargo movement;

delivery;

damage.

34. Expert Evidence

Maritime disputes frequently require specialised technical expertise.

Experts may address:

navigation;

collision reconstruction;

ship stability;

cargo condition;

seaworthiness;

engineering;

salvage;

valuation;

repairs.

The court remains responsible for determining the legal consequences of the established facts.

An expert's technical conclusion does not automatically determine the legal result.

35. Civil-Law Damages

Where maritime liability is established, compensation generally seeks to address legally recoverable loss caused by the wrongful act or breach.

Potential heads include:

repair costs;

cargo value;

loss of use;

reasonable consequential losses;

personal injury;

death-related compensation;

property damage.

However, recoverability depends upon:

causation;

proof;

foreseeability where relevant;

applicable contractual limitations;

maritime limitation rules;

statutory exclusions.

36. Force Majeure

A maritime defendant may argue that the loss resulted from:

extraordinary weather;

natural disaster;

unavoidable accident;

external event;

government action;

other legally recognised external causes.

The court must distinguish genuine force majeure from:

poor navigation;

inadequate maintenance;

crew negligence;

foreseeable operational difficulties.

The contractual and statutory treatment of force majeure must be examined carefully.

37. Maritime Claims and Environmental Damage

Modern maritime law increasingly addresses:

pollution;

environmental damage;

wreck removal;

hazardous cargo;

marine contamination.

The new UAE Maritime Law expands the categories of maritime debts to include certain environmental-damage and wreck-related claims. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

This demonstrates that maritime civil liability is expanding beyond traditional ship-and-cargo disputes toward environmental protection.

38. Maritime Claim vs Ordinary Civil Claim

39. Practical Example

Assume Vessel A collides with Vessel B in UAE waters.

Vessel B suffers:

AED 8 million hull damage;

AED 2 million cargo loss;

AED 500,000 loss of use.

The claimant should examine:

Step 1

Was this legally a maritime collision?

Step 2

Which vessel was at fault?

Step 3

Was there contributory fault?

Step 4

What losses were caused by the collision?

Step 5

Is the claim within the statutory maritime framework?

Step 6

Can Vessel A be arrested?

Step 7

Which court has jurisdiction?

Step 8

Is there an arbitration agreement?

Step 9

Does a limitation regime apply?

Step 10

What evidence establishes causation and quantum?

40. Practical Example — Cargo Damage

Suppose a container of temperature-sensitive pharmaceuticals arrives damaged.

The claimant should examine:

bill of lading;

charterparty;

carrier's obligations;

temperature records;

refrigeration records;

loading condition;

discharge condition;

survey evidence;

causation;

contractual limitations;

statutory time bar;

insurance.

The claim may involve multiple parties:

Cargo owner → carrier → shipowner → terminal → freight forwarder → insurer.

The correct defendant and legal basis must therefore be identified carefully.

41. Maritime Claims and Civil-Law Principles

The UAE system can be understood as a combination of:

Special maritime rules

General civil-law principles

The special maritime law controls matters specifically regulated by it.

The general Civil Transactions Law can supplement the maritime framework where appropriate.

The Federal Supreme Court's tug/offshore-structure jurisprudence illustrates this precisely: because the accident did not fall within the statutory concept of maritime collision, the Court applied the general civil-liability provisions. (eLaws)

42. Six Case-Law Revision Table

43. Important Current-Law Point

A crucial distinction must be made between the old 1981 Maritime Commercial Law and the current 2023 Maritime Law.

The 1981 law governed many of the older UAE maritime cases, including the Federal Supreme Court ship-arrest and collision decisions discussed above.

The current framework is Federal Decree-Law No. 43 of 2023, effective from 29 March 2024. (Littdb)

Recent legal commentary indicates that reported Federal Supreme Court/Cassation decisions specifically interpreting the new 2023 arrest provisions remain limited or unavailable. Therefore, older cases should not automatically be treated as authoritative interpretations of the new provisions. (kayrouzandassociates.com)

44. Conclusion

UAE maritime claims form a specialised branch of civil and commercial law dealing with disputes arising from ships and maritime activities. The present statutory framework is Federal Decree-Law No. 43 of 2023 on Maritime Law, which replaced the 1981 Maritime Commercial Law and substantially revised ship arrest, maritime debts, priorities, collision and other maritime matters. (Littdb)

The most important categories include:

collision claims;

cargo claims;

charterparty disputes;

salvage claims;

towage and pilotage claims;

crew claims;

ship-repair claims;

ship-mortgage claims;

marine-insurance claims;

general-average claims;

environmental claims;

ship-arrest claims.

The UAE Federal Supreme Court's maritime jurisprudence shows that classification is critical: a court must determine whether an incident falls within the special maritime regime or instead must be decided under general civil-law principles. The tug/offshore-structure decision is especially important because it demonstrates that not every ship-related accident constitutes a statutory maritime collision. (eLaws)

The central practical principle is:

A successful UAE maritime claim requires not only proof of loss, but correct identification of the maritime legal category, responsible party, applicable statutory regime, jurisdiction, security mechanism, limitation period and available remedy.

Short Revision Points

UAE maritime law is principally governed today by Federal Decree-Law No. 43 of 2023.

It replaced Federal Law No. 26 of 1981.

Maritime claims may be contractual, tortious, proprietary or security-related.

Article 53(2) identifies maritime debts supporting vessel arrest.

Sister-ship arrest is available in specified circumstances.

Collision has a specialised statutory regime.

Collision with a fixed structure may instead invoke general civil liability.

Ship arrest and substantive liability are legally distinct.

A vessel itself is not necessarily the proper substantive defendant.

Crew, cargo, salvage, towage, pilotage and repair claims can be maritime claims.

Privileged debts receive statutory priority.

Arbitration may govern the merits while courts provide interim security.

Technical evidence is particularly important.

The 2023 Maritime Law must be distinguished from older 1981-law case law.

The new-law jurisprudence is still developing.