Civil Law and UAE: Mass Tort Litigation Framework

1. Introduction

Mass tort litigation arises when a single act, product, event, omission, or course of conduct causes legally actionable harm to a large number of people.

Examples include:

• defective products causing injuries to many consumers;
• building or infrastructure failures;
• industrial accidents;
• environmental contamination;
• transport accidents;
• large-scale fires or explosions;
• medical or pharmaceutical harm;
• financial or investment misconduct affecting numerous persons;
• data or technology failures causing widespread losses.

The UAE does not have one comprehensive federal statute called a “Mass Tort Act.” Instead, mass-tort disputes are governed by a combination of:

1. the Civil Transactions Law;
2. sector-specific legislation;
3. insurance and contractual liability;
4. rules concerning multiple wrongdoers;
5. evidence and expert determination;
6. court case-management mechanisms;
7. consolidation and group litigation where the relevant jurisdiction permits it.

The current Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the Civil Transactions Law is particularly important because Articles 253–255 expressly deal with multiple responsible persons, contributory conduct, moral harm and compensation.

2. Meaning of Mass Tort

A mass tort is not necessarily one single lawsuit.

It is better understood as:

A large number of individual legal claims arising from the same or substantially connected conduct, event, product or circumstance.

For example, assume a manufacturer sells 100,000 defective batteries and 2,000 consumers suffer damage.

There may be:

• one common factual question: Was the battery defective?
• one common legal question: Was the manufacturer legally responsible?
• thousands of individual questions: What injury did each consumer suffer?

Therefore:

Common liability ≠ identical damages.

This distinction is central to UAE mass-tort analysis.

3. Difference Between Mass Tort and Class Action

The concepts should not be confused.

Mass tort

Usually consists of numerous individual claims arising from common facts.

Class action

Normally involves a representative proceeding in which a defined class is represented collectively, subject to the relevant statutory rules.

The DIFC system has a Group Litigation Order (GLO) mechanism rather than simply adopting the US class-action model.

A GLO allows related claims involving common or related issues to be managed collectively while retaining the possibility of determining individual issues separately.

4. Substantive Foundation: Article 253

Article 253 of the current Civil Transactions Law is particularly important.

Where multiple persons are responsible for the same harm, the law provides that:

• each can be liable according to their share;
• the court may impose equal liability;
• the court may impose joint and several liability;
• compensation may be reduced or denied where the injured party contributed to causing or aggravating the harm. 

This is extremely important in mass torts.

Example

Suppose a building collapse involves:

• developer negligence;
• contractor negligence;
• defective materials;
• negligent engineering supervision.

A claimant does not necessarily have to identify one single actor as the entire cause of the disaster.

The court can examine the contribution of multiple responsible persons.

5. Contributory Conduct

Mass-tort cases may also involve allegations that the claimant contributed to the injury.

Article 253 permits the court to reduce compensation, or potentially decline compensation, where the injured party's own conduct:

• contributed to causing the damage; or
• aggravated the damage. 

This principle is important because mass litigation often involves thousands of different factual circumstances.

For example:

Two people may be injured by the same defective machine, but their individual conduct immediately before the accident may be different.

The common issue can therefore be decided collectively while contributory conduct may need individual assessment.

6. Moral Damage

Article 254 expressly recognises moral harm.

It includes infringement of matters such as:

• freedom;
• honour;
• reputation;
• social standing;
• financial status.

The provision also allows compensation to spouses and relatives up to the second degree for moral harm arising from the incapacity or death of the injured person.

This is significant in mass-tort litigation because not every injury is purely financial.

A mass accident may produce:

physical harm + financial loss + moral harm.

7. Compensation and Lost Profit

Article 255 provides that compensation is assessed by reference to:

• the extent of the loss suffered; and
• lost profit,

where the loss is a natural consequence of the harmful act.

Therefore, mass-tort compensation may involve:

Personal losses

• medical expenses;
• rehabilitation;
• disability;
• loss of earning capacity.

Property losses

• destruction of property;
• repair costs;
• replacement costs.

Economic losses

• lost profits;
• business interruption;
• other legally recoverable financial losses.

Non-economic losses

• moral harm.

8. The Basic Mass-Tort Formula

A useful legal model is:

Common Event

↓

Common Defendant Conduct

↓

Duty / Breach / Wrongful Act

↓

Causation

↓

Individual Injury

↓

Individual Loss

↓

Compensation

This demonstrates why mass torts are difficult.

The first four stages may be common, while the final two can be highly individualised.

9. Common Issues and Individual Issues

A court dealing with numerous related claims can divide the litigation into two categories.

Common issues

Examples:

• Was the product defective?
• Was the defendant negligent?
• Was there a safety-system failure?
• Did the defendant breach a statutory duty?
• Did a particular event cause the injuries?

Individual issues

Examples:

• What injury did claimant A suffer?
• What income did claimant B lose?
• Did claimant C contribute to the accident?
• What medical treatment does claimant D require?

This distinction is the foundation of efficient mass litigation.

10. DIFC Group Litigation Orders

The DIFC Courts provide a particularly developed framework for collective management of related claims.

A Group Litigation Order can facilitate management of cases involving common or related questions of:

• fact;
• law;
• evidence;
• liability.

The mechanism permits the court to manage group claims while distinguishing common issues from individual issues.

This makes the DIFC framework particularly relevant when studying UAE mass-tort litigation, although it should not be treated as a federal mainland UAE class-action statute.

11. Case Law 1 — Rasmala Investments Ltd v Various Defendants

Rasmala Investments Limited v Rana Banat & Others [2009] DIFC CFI 001–006/2009

Six separate former employees brought proceedings involving substantially the same cause of action.

A common ground of appeal was agreed to be argued as a test case binding the parties in all six appeals.

Principle

The case demonstrates the utility of identifying a common legal issue and resolving it through a test case rather than repeatedly deciding the same issue six times.

Mass-tort relevance

The same technique can be useful where hundreds of claims depend upon one common question.

For example:

“Was the product defective?”

could be determined as a common issue before individual damages are assessed.

12. Case Law 2 — Dattani v DAMAC Park Towers

Amit Dattani & Others v DAMAC Park Towers Company Ltd [2012] DIFC CFI 034

This litigation involved multiple claimants and related property/construction issues.

The DIFC Court ordered that two proceedings be consolidated, while an application for a Group Litigation Order was stayed pending further directions.

Principle

The case illustrates that collective case management may involve:

• consolidation;
• GLO applications;
• common procedural directions;
• coordinated pleadings;
• common evidence.

Mass-tort significance

Where numerous victims arise from the same defective building or construction failure, consolidation may prevent:

• duplicated evidence;
• inconsistent findings;
• unnecessary costs.

13. Case Law 3 — Five Holding Ltd v Orient UNB Takaful PJSC

Five Holding Ltd v Orient UNB Takaful PJSC [2021] DIFC CFI 027

This dispute involved insurance claims concerning related hotel operations.

The related proceedings raised significant jurisdictional and procedural issues. The DIFC Court stayed proceedings following an application to the Joint Judicial Committee.

A related judgment explains that the corresponding claims involved the same insured events, an insurance policy and a single applicable limit of indemnity, creating a risk of inconsistent judgments and multiplicity of proceedings.

Mass-tort relevance

The case demonstrates a major principle:

Related claims should not be managed in a way that creates inconsistent judgments or duplicate recovery.

This becomes especially important when many victims seek payment from the same insurer.

14. Case Law 4 — Five Holding Ltd v Qatar Insurance Company

Five Holding Ltd & Five Hotel FZE v Qatar Insurance Company [2021] DIFC CFI 028

The case initially resulted in a default judgment for AED 25 million, followed by jurisdictional and procedural challenges.

The proceedings were subsequently stayed following the Joint Judicial Committee process.

Principle

The case illustrates that mass or related commercial claims can involve a preliminary question:

Which judicial system should determine the dispute?

That is particularly important in the UAE because disputes can potentially engage:

• Dubai Courts;
• DIFC Courts;
• other UAE courts;
• arbitration.

Mass-tort significance

Before substantive liability is determined, the court may have to resolve:

jurisdiction → applicable forum → procedural coordination → merits.

15. Case Law 5 — Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen

Al Khorafi & Others v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd [2014] DIFC CFI 026

This was a major multi-claimant dispute involving substantial financial losses.

The litigation demonstrates the importance of separating:

• liability;
• causation;
• recoverable loss;
• individual damages.

Mass-tort relevance

Even where several claimants are affected by common conduct, their damages need not be identical.

For example:

A common finding of liability does not automatically establish the same compensation for each claimant.

The case is therefore useful as an analogy for the individual-quantum stage of mass litigation.

16. Case Law 6 — Levent & Lexie v Lilika

Levent & Lexie v Lilika [2021] DIFC CFI 030

This case concerned an off-road vehicle accident in Sharjah involving allegations concerning a vehicle fire and resulting injuries.

The DIFC Court was asked to assist foreign proceedings by obtaining evidence from UAE-based persons and institutions, including police and hospital-related evidence.

Importance for mass torts

A large accident can produce evidence located across:

• police authorities;
• hospitals;
• manufacturers;
• insurers;
• vehicle owners;
• witnesses.

The case demonstrates the importance of cross-border evidence gathering in accident litigation.

17. Case Law 7 — Amira C Foods v IDBI Bank

Amira C Foods International DMCC & Another v IDBI Bank Ltd & Another [2018] DIFC CFI 027

Although not a conventional mass-tort case, the decision is useful for the principles of:

• causation;
• economic loss;
• proof;
• quantification of damages.

Relevance

Mass torts can produce enormous claims for:

• lost profits;
• business interruption;
• loss of opportunity;
• financing costs.

But the size of the overall event does not itself establish the amount of each claimant's loss.

Each claimant must establish the legally recoverable consequences attributable to the defendant's conduct.

18. Case Law 8 — Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank

Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & Others [2019] DIFC CFI 054

The litigation involved questions concerning multiple defendants, damage and causation.

Mass-tort significance

The case demonstrates the importance of identifying actionable damage and establishing the causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the claimant's loss.

This principle becomes particularly important where a large event generates numerous different types of alleged losses.

19. Case-Law Table

Important qualification: these are predominantly DIFC authorities and analogical authorities, rather than a collection of mainland UAE Supreme Court decisions involving a single mass-tort catastrophe. The substantive mainland foundation is the current Civil Transactions Law, while the DIFC cases provide especially useful examples of collective case management.

20. Insurance in Mass Tort Litigation

Insurance may be one of the most important practical elements.

Potential insurance layers include:

• public liability insurance;
• product liability insurance;
• professional indemnity;
• employer liability;
• construction insurance;
• property insurance;
• motor insurance;
• aviation insurance;
• marine insurance.

Suppose 500 people are injured by a defective product.

There may be:

500 victims

→ 1 manufacturer

→ 1 product-liability policy

→ 1 policy limit

This creates important questions concerning:

• coverage;
• exclusions;
• policy limits;
• notification;
• aggregation;
• allocation;
• contribution.

The Five Holding litigation illustrates the problems that can arise when related claims are made under the same insurance arrangements and the same insured events.

21. Policy Limits and Mass Claims

Consider:

Insurance limit = AED 100 million

but:

Total established claims = AED 250 million

The insurer's contractual exposure does not automatically become AED 250 million.

The litigation may therefore require analysis of:

1. whether the claims fall within the policy;
2. whether they arise from one or multiple occurrences;
3. applicable limits;
4. exclusions;
5. priority;
6. contribution;
7. claims against other liable parties.

This makes insurance law an essential component of mass-tort litigation.

22. Causation in Mass Tort

Causation is usually one of the hardest issues.

Imagine 5,000 people become ill following a chemical release.

The court may need to determine:

1. Did the release occur?
2. Was the defendant responsible for it?
3. Were claimants actually exposed?
4. Did exposure cause the illness?
5. Were there alternative causes?
6. What injuries were caused by the event?
7. What portion of each claimant's loss is attributable to it?

A common finding that:

“The defendant caused the contamination”

does not necessarily establish:

“Every claimant suffered the same injury.”

23. Expert Evidence

Mass-tort proceedings can require large-scale expert evidence.

Medical experts

Determine:

• diagnosis;
• causation;
• disability;
• prognosis.

Engineering experts

Determine:

• structural failure;
• construction defects;
• safety failures.

Environmental experts

Determine:

• contamination;
• exposure;
• environmental damage.

Accountants

Determine:

• lost profits;
• business interruption;
• income loss.

Accident-reconstruction experts

Determine:

• sequence of events;
• speed;
• impact;
• technical cause.

Therefore:

Mass tort litigation is frequently evidence-intensive rather than merely argument-intensive.

24. Common Liability Followed by Individual Quantum

This is perhaps the most important procedural model.

Stage 1 — Common trial

The court decides:

• Was the defendant liable?
• Was the product defective?
• Did the accident result from negligence?

Stage 2 — Individual assessment

The court determines:

• injury;
• medical expenses;
• lost income;
• disability;
• property damage;
• moral harm.

This avoids conducting the same liability trial thousands of times.

The Rasmala test-case approach demonstrates the underlying procedural logic: a common issue can be determined once and applied across related proceedings.

25. Consolidation

Consolidation means joining related proceedings so that they can be managed together.

It can reduce:

• duplicate evidence;
• contradictory judgments;
• legal costs;
• unnecessary hearings.

The Dattani proceedings demonstrate this approach: the DIFC Court ordered consolidation of related proceedings while dealing separately with the GLO application.

26. Group Litigation Order

A GLO is broader than merely combining two cases.

It can establish:

• a group of related claims;
• common issues;
• individual issues;
• management procedures;
• test cases;
• directions applicable to the group.

This can be particularly useful for:

Product liability

1,000 consumers affected.

Construction failure

300 property owners affected.

Environmental contamination

2,000 residents affected.

Financial misconduct

Hundreds of investors affected.

27. Why Individual Claims Remain Important

Collective litigation should not erase individual circumstances.

For example:

Victim A

Minor injury, AED 10,000 medical expenses.

Victim B

Permanent disability, loss of earning capacity.

Victim C

Death, with surviving family members.

Victim D

No physical injury but substantial property loss.

A single common liability finding cannot automatically produce a uniform award.

This is why the distinction between common liability and individual quantum is fundamental.

28. Moral Harm in Mass Torts

The current Article 254 framework is especially significant.

Suppose a mass accident results in deaths.

The legal consequences can extend beyond the victim's economic loss because spouses and qualifying relatives may have claims for moral harm arising from death or incapacity.

Thus, a mass-tort compensation model may be:

Economic loss

Physical injury

Property loss

Moral harm

rather than purely financial compensation.

29. Emergency Harm and Disaster Response

Mass-tort litigation can sometimes arise from emergency intervention itself.

Article 252 provides special treatment where a person causes harm in order to avert a greater imminent harm. The person is not automatically liable for full compensation; the court determines the appropriate extent with regard to justice.

Example:

A civil-defence authority damages property while preventing an imminent catastrophic fire from spreading.

The resulting claim cannot necessarily be analysed like ordinary negligence.

30. Contribution Between Defendants

Suppose:

• Manufacturer = 40%
• Contractor = 30%
• Property owner = 20%
• Maintenance company = 10%

The court may have to determine how responsibility should be allocated.

Article 253 expressly accommodates multiple responsible persons and permits the court to determine proportionate, equal or joint-and-several responsibility according to the circumstances.

This is especially valuable in complex mass-tort situations because disasters rarely have only one possible contributing cause.

31. Limitation and Mass Claims

A mass tort does not automatically eliminate limitation requirements.

Each claimant may need to consider:

• when the cause of action arose;
• when the damage became known;
• applicable statutory limitation;
• special limitation rules;
• whether a claim was interrupted or preserved.

A group proceeding therefore requires careful limitation management.

A defendant may raise limitation against individual claimants even where the underlying event is common.

32. Settlement of Mass Claims

Mass-tort cases can potentially be resolved through:

• individual settlements;
• group settlements;
• insurance settlements;
• structured compensation;
• settlement of common issues;
• settlement followed by individual assessment.

However, settlement must account for:

• different injury levels;
• different claim values;
• legal costs;
• insurance limits;
• contribution among defendants.

A single settlement formula may be efficient, but it must still comply with the applicable legal and procedural framework.

33. Evidence Management

Large-scale litigation creates a special evidence problem.

A single event might produce:

• millions of documents;
• CCTV footage;
• electronic communications;
• maintenance records;
• medical records;
• expert reports;
• insurance documents;
• photographs;
• digital logs.

Consequently, modern mass-tort litigation requires:

preservation → disclosure → categorisation → expert analysis → common evidence → individual evidence.

This can substantially affect litigation costs and duration.

34. UAE Mainland and DIFC Must Be Distinguished

This distinction is crucial.

Mainland UAE

The principal substantive framework comes from federal legislation, particularly the current Civil Transactions Law.

DIFC

The DIFC has its own court system and procedural rules, including Group Litigation Orders.

ADGM

ADGM similarly has its own court and procedural framework.

Therefore:

A DIFC GLO should not be described as a federal UAE class-action mechanism.

It is a DIFC procedural mechanism.

Likewise, a DIFC judgment should not automatically be treated as a binding interpretation of mainland UAE Civil Transactions Law.

35. Practical Example

Imagine a defective construction product causes a ceiling collapse in 500 apartments.

Common questions

1. Was the product defective?
2. Did the manufacturer breach its duty?
3. Did the contractor install it incorrectly?
4. Was the defect causally connected with the collapse?

Individual questions

1. What property did each owner lose?
2. Was anyone injured?
3. What medical expenses were incurred?
4. Was temporary accommodation required?
5. Was rental income lost?
6. Did the claimant contribute to the damage?

Litigation structure

Common liability trial

↓

Finding regarding manufacturer/contractor

↓

Individual damage assessment

↓

Insurance claims

↓

Final compensation

This is the basic architecture of a mass-tort system.

36. Key Problems in UAE Mass Tort Litigation

37. Six Major Principles for Examination

1. Mass tort is not automatically class action

A mass tort can consist of numerous individual claims.

2. Common liability can be separated from individual damages

This is one of the most important procedural concepts.

3. Multiple wrongdoers can share responsibility

Article 253 provides an express statutory basis.

4. Victim contribution can affect compensation

The claimant's own conduct may reduce or eliminate compensation in appropriate circumstances.

5. Moral harm is compensable

Article 254 expressly recognises moral harm and specified family claims arising from death or incapacity.

6. DIFC collective procedures provide an important UAE example

Rasmala and Dattani demonstrate mechanisms for handling common issues, consolidation and collective case management.

38. Exam Revision Table

39. Overall Legal Framework

The UAE mass-tort framework can therefore be represented as:

Harmful Event

↓

Multiple Victims

↓

Potentially Multiple Defendants

↓

Civil Liability Under Applicable Law

↓

Common Questions

↓

Consolidation / Group Management Where Available

↓

Common Liability Determination

↓

Individual Causation and Quantum

↓

Insurance / Contribution

↓

Individual or Collective Settlement/Judgment

↓

Compensation

Conclusion

The UAE mass tort litigation framework is best understood as a combination of substantive civil liability and specialised procedural case management rather than a single federal class-action regime.

The current Civil Transactions Law provides the substantive foundation by expressly addressing multiple wrongdoers, contributory conduct, moral harm and compensation. The DIFC provides an especially developed procedural model through consolidation, test cases and Group Litigation Orders, illustrated by Rasmala Investments, Dattani, and the related Five Holding proceedings.

The central principle for examination is:

Mass tort litigation seeks to combine procedural efficiency for common issues with individual justice for each claimant's causation, injury and compensation.

Thus, common facts can be managed collectively, but individual rights and damages must ultimately be protected separately.