Civil Law and UAE: Multi-Party Liability Apportionment

1. Introduction

Multi-party liability apportionment concerns situations where two or more persons contribute to the same loss and the court must determine how responsibility should be distributed among them.

Typical examples include:

contractor + consultant;

doctor + hospital;

manufacturer + distributor;

employer + employee;

several negligent professionals;

several companies involved in one transaction;

directors + company;

insurer + insured;

technology developer + operator;

multiple tortfeasors causing one injury.

Under the UAE's current Civil Transactions Law — Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective 1 June 2026 — Article 253 specifically provides that where several persons are responsible for harm, each is liable according to their share, while the court may order equal or joint and several liability. The court may also reduce or eliminate compensation where the injured party contributed to or aggravated the harm. (UAE Legislation)

The basic formula is:

Multiple Responsible Parties + Individual Fault + Causal Contribution + Common Harm = Judicial Apportionment of Liability

2. Meaning of Multi-Party Liability

Multi-party liability arises where the same damage is attributable to more than one legally responsible person.

For example:

Architect makes a design error
↓
Contractor uses defective materials
↓
Consultant fails to detect the defect
↓
Building develops structural damage

The court may need to decide whether:

the architect is responsible;

the contractor is responsible;

the consultant is responsible;

all are responsible;

responsibility should be divided;

or they should be liable jointly and severally.

The important point is that participation in the same project does not automatically create liability.

Each person's conduct must have a legally relevant connection with the damage.

3. Current Statutory Foundation — Article 253

Article 253 of the 2025 Civil Transactions Law contains two important rules.

Article 253(1)

Where several persons are responsible for harm:

each may be liable according to their share;

the court may impose equal liability;

the court may impose joint and several liability. (UAE Legislation)

Article 253(2)

Where the injured person contributed to causing or aggravating the harm, the court may:

reduce compensation; or

refuse compensation altogether. (UAE Legislation)

Therefore, the current law gives the court flexibility in allocating responsibility.

4. Three Forms of Apportionment

A. Proportionate Liability

Each defendant pays according to their established contribution.

Example:

Contractor — 50%

Engineer — 30%

Consultant — 20%

For AED 1,000,000 damage:

B. Equal Liability

Where the court cannot reasonably establish different shares, it may order equal responsibility.

For three responsible persons and AED 900,000 damage:

A = AED 300,000

B = AED 300,000

C = AED 300,000.

C. Joint and Several Liability

This is different.

If A and B are jointly and severally liable for AED 1 million, the claimant may generally recover the legally recoverable amount from either responsible defendant, subject to the applicable rules.

The internal economic burden can then be dealt with between the responsible parties.

This is particularly important where:

the damage is indivisible;

several persons contributed to the same injury;

determining individual shares is difficult;

protecting the injured claimant requires stronger recovery protection.

Article 253 expressly allows the court to impose joint and several liability. (UAE Legislation)

5. Joint Liability Does Not Mean Automatic Liability

A common examination mistake is:

“There are three defendants, therefore all three are jointly liable.”

That is incorrect.

The court must establish the relevant elements for each defendant.

The classic UAE jurisprudence under former Article 291 required consideration of:

fault attributable to each person;

contribution of each fault to the damage; and

unity of the damage.

The Dubai Court of Cassation's Civil Appeal No. 309 of 2016 is particularly important on this point. A recent 2026 ADGM judgment analysing UAE law quoted that decision and explained that joint liability depends upon the faults of the respective persons contributing to the same damage. (Bailii)

Although the 2016 case interpreted the former Article 291, its reasoning remains important background for understanding current Article 253.

6. Fault Must Be Individualised

The court should ask separately:

Defendant A

What did A do?

Defendant B

What did B do?

Defendant C

What did C fail to do?

Then:

Did each person's conduct contribute to the same damage?

This avoids imposing liability merely because a person was:

an employee;

shareholder;

director;

consultant;

contractor;

supplier;

investor;

intermediary.

Legal responsibility must be established according to the applicable relationship and conduct.

7. Causation Is Central

Multi-party apportionment is fundamentally a causation problem.

Consider:

Defective design + defective materials + inadequate supervision → structural collapse.

The court needs to identify:

design contribution;

material contribution;

supervision contribution;

whether all contributed to the same damage;

whether any later event interrupted causation.

Article 253 therefore works together with the current compensation rule in Article 255, which provides that compensation is assessed according to the loss and lost profit that are the natural consequence of the harmful act. (UAE Legislation)

8. Unity of Damage

A particularly important concept in multi-party liability is unity of damage.

Suppose:

A causes AED 500,000 damage;

B independently causes AED 500,000 damage.

If these are two completely separate losses, joint liability for one unified harm may not automatically follow.

But if:

A's negligence + B's negligence → one indivisible AED 1 million loss,

the case for collective responsibility is much stronger.

This distinction was important in the Dubai Court of Cassation's Civil Appeal No. 309/2016 reasoning concerning joint liability. (Bailii)

9. Apportionment Based on Causal Contribution

The court can consider:

seriousness of fault;

causal contribution;

professional responsibility;

contractual obligations;

control over the risk;

knowledge;

opportunity to prevent the harm;

evidence;

nature of the damage.

For example:

The percentages are illustrative only. The actual court must determine responsibility from the evidence.

10. Claimant's Contribution

Multi-party liability also includes the claimant's own conduct.

Article 253(2) expressly permits reduction or denial of compensation where the injured person contributed to causing or aggravating the damage. (UAE Legislation)

Example

A contractor performs defective work.

But the owner:

receives a warning;

ignores it;

continues using the dangerous structure;

refuses necessary repairs.

The court may determine that the claimant contributed to the final damage.

Thus:

Defendant's fault + claimant's contribution = adjusted compensation.

11. Apportionment and Vicarious Liability

Multi-party liability should be distinguished from vicarious liability.

Vicarious liability

Employer may be responsible for an employee's legally attributable conduct.

Multi-party liability

Several legally responsible persons may contribute to the same damage.

They can overlap.

For example:

Doctor's negligence + hospital's institutional negligence.

The doctor may have direct responsibility while the hospital may have vicarious or independent institutional responsibility.

The recent Dubai Court of Cassation Judgment No. 377/2025 illustrates this type of multi-defendant medical-liability dispute. The first-instance court ordered two appellants jointly and severally to pay AED 700,000 for material and moral damages following a medical-negligence claim. (Al Tamimi & Company)

12. Apportionment in Construction Law

Construction is one of the clearest examples.

Possible participants include:

owner;

developer;

architect;

engineer;

main contractor;

subcontractor;

supplier;

project manager.

Suppose a building develops major structural defects.

Possible causes:

Design defect
+
Defective materials
+
Poor construction
+
Inadequate inspection.

The court can determine responsibility among the participants.

A reported Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation No. 339/2009 is cited in UAE legal commentary as an example involving construction defects and allocation of responsibility between a consultant and contractor under the former Article 291 framework. Because the readily accessible material is secondary, the case should be used cautiously rather than treated as a substitute for the judgment text. (Law Gratis)

13. Apportionment in Medical Negligence

Medical cases frequently involve:

surgeon;

anaesthetist;

hospital;

nursing staff;

diagnostic provider;

treating physician.

The patient's injury may have several causes.

For example:

Incorrect diagnosis → delayed treatment → surgical complication → inadequate postoperative monitoring.

The court must determine the contribution of each participant.

Dubai Court of Cassation No. 377/2025

This is a useful modern example.

The patient alleged serious medical negligence following surgery. The Medical Liability Committee found gross negligence and permanent loss of stomach function. The first-instance court ultimately imposed joint and several liability on two appellants for AED 700,000 in material and moral compensation. (Al Tamimi & Company)

The case demonstrates that the court can impose joint and several liability rather than merely dividing the award numerically where the legal requirements are satisfied.

14. Apportionment and Professional Advisers

A professional adviser may argue:

“The client suffered the loss because of another professional.”

For example:

auditor;

lawyer;

engineer;

consultant;

financial adviser.

The court must determine whether the professional's own duty was breached and whether that breach contributed to the loss.

Being one participant in a professional chain does not automatically establish liability.

15. Apportionment and Corporate Groups

A company and its shareholders are normally separate legal persons.

Therefore:

Company liability ≠ automatic shareholder liability.

Similarly:

Parent company ≠ automatic liability for subsidiary's conduct.

A claimant must establish a separate legal basis for imposing liability on the additional entity or individual.

This becomes particularly important where a claimant names:

parent company;

subsidiary;

director;

shareholder;

manager;

agent.

Multi-party litigation does not eliminate the separate legal personality principle.

16. Apportionment and Joint-and-Several Recovery

The distinction between external liability and internal allocation is important.

External relationship

Claimant → Defendants

The claimant may be permitted to recover against jointly and severally liable defendants.

Internal relationship

Defendant A → Defendant B → Defendant C

The defendants may then have rights of contribution or recourse according to their respective legal relationships.

Therefore:

Joint and several liability protects the claimant; contribution determines the ultimate economic burden among responsible parties.

17. Important Case Law

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

This is one of the most important UAE authorities for multi-party liability.

The Court considered the former Article 291 and explained the requirements for joint liability, including:

fault attributable to each person;

contribution of each fault to the damage; and

unity of the resulting harm.

A 2026 ADGM judgment applying UAE law analysed this decision and rejected the proposition that a person automatically becomes jointly liable merely because they were associated with broader wrongdoing. The person's participation must have a causal connection with the relevant damage. (Bailii)

Principle

Common liability requires legally relevant contribution to the common damage.

Case 2 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 377 of 2025

This modern medical-negligence case involved multiple defendants and a claim for material and moral compensation.

The first-instance court ordered two appellants to pay AED 700,000 jointly and severally after the Medical Liability Committee found gross medical negligence and permanent loss of stomach function. (Al Tamimi & Company)

Principle

Multiple medical actors can be subject to joint and several responsibility where the evidence establishes the necessary legal connection with the injury.

Importance

This is especially useful for:

medical negligence;

institutional liability;

professional negligence;

allocation among healthcare actors.

Case 3 — Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation No. 339 of 2009

This construction-related authority is reported as involving responsibility between a consultant and contractor for defects.

The case is cited in UAE legal commentary as an application of the former Article 291 framework, illustrating that responsibility can be allocated between professional participants contributing to the same defect. (Law Gratis)

Principle

Multiple professional participants can share responsibility where their respective faults contribute to the same damage.

Qualification

The accessible source is secondary rather than the official judgment text, so the exact factual allocation should be treated cautiously.

Case 4 — Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty [2022] EWHC 529 (Comm)

This was an English High Court case involving issues under UAE law, rather than a UAE court judgment.

It is nevertheless useful because the court considered the UAE approach to multiple wrongdoers and Article 291.

The case illustrates an important limitation:

A person is not automatically liable for all losses associated with a broader wrongdoing merely because that person participated in some part of it.

Causal contribution and timing remain important. This UAE-law analysis has also been considered in subsequent UAE-law litigation. (Law Gratis)

Importance

Useful for cross-border disputes involving:

fraud;

multiple defendants;

UAE governing law;

causation;

joint liability.

Case 5 — Union Properties PJSC & Another v Trinkler & Partners Ltd & Others [2026] ADGMCFI 0010

This is a significant recent ADGM Court decision discussing UAE-law principles.

The Court considered former Article 291 and Dubai Cassation Civil Appeal No. 309/2016.

A central issue was whether a person's involvement in wrongdoing was sufficiently connected to the damage for which joint liability was claimed.

The Court considered the argument that there is a strong role for apportionment under UAE law and analysed when joint and several liability is appropriate. (Bailii)

Principle

Timing and causal contribution matter.

A person who becomes involved only after a particular loss has already occurred cannot automatically be treated as responsible for that earlier loss merely because they later participate in related wrongdoing.

Qualification

This is an ADGM Court decision discussing UAE law; it is not a Federal Supreme Court or Dubai Court of Cassation judgment.

Case 6 — Vannin Capital PCC PLC v Al Khorafi & Others [2014] DIFC CFI 036

The DIFC Court dealt with a dispute in which two financial institutions had previously been found jointly and severally liable for compensation.

The underlying proceedings resulted in substantial damages and the defendants were ordered to be jointly and severally liable for specified losses. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Joint and several liability can operate so that the claimant has an enforceable recovery route against jointly liable defendants rather than being required to divide recovery strictly according to each defendant's internal contribution.

Qualification

This is a DIFC authority, not a mainland UAE Federal Court precedent.

Case 7 — Khaled Salem Musabeh Humad Al Mheiri v John Cameron [2025] DIFC CA 008

This case concerned a parasailing accident involving a vessel owner and driver.

The DIFC Court of Appeal considered whether the owner could be held responsible for the driver's conduct and referred to the requirements for principal/agent responsibility, including actual authority to supervise and direct the agent and the connection between the conduct and the agent's duties. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Multi-party liability can involve different legal bases:

direct negligence;

agency;

vicarious liability;

contractual responsibility.

Importance

It demonstrates that apportionment must first identify the legal basis of each defendant's responsibility.

Case 8 — Alexander Reuter & Others v Wellness United Inc & Others [2021] DIFC CFI 107

The DIFC Court ordered several defendants to pay specified sums jointly and severally to different claimants, including interest and costs. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Where the legal basis for collective responsibility is established, a court can structure the judgment so that several defendants bear joint and several responsibility for the relevant judgment debt.

Qualification

Again, this is a DIFC authority and therefore should not be presented as binding precedent for mainland UAE courts.

18. Current Law Compared with Former Article 291

This distinction is very important for examinations.

Therefore, older cases should not simply be quoted as though they interpreted Article 253.

They remain useful for understanding the development of UAE jurisprudence, but current disputes must be analysed under the 2025 Civil Transactions Law where applicable. The new law is part of the UAE's legislative modernization and came into force on 1 June 2026. (UAE Legislation)

19. Multi-Party Liability vs Joint and Several Liability

These concepts should not be confused.

Multi-party liability

Describes the existence of several legally responsible persons.

Apportionment

Determines each person's responsibility.

Joint liability

Allows responsibility to be imposed collectively according to the applicable legal rule.

Several liability

Each defendant can have an independently enforceable obligation.

Joint and several liability

The claimant can generally pursue the legally recoverable amount from one or more jointly liable parties, subject to the judgment and applicable law.

20. Practical Example — Construction

Suppose a building suffers AED 10 million in damage.

Evidence shows:

architect: 30% causal contribution;

contractor: 40%;

supervising consultant: 20%;

owner: 10%.

If the court chooses proportional apportionment:

But if the damage is indivisible and the legal conditions justify joint and several liability, the court may instead impose collective liability.

Article 253 gives the court this flexibility. (UAE Legislation)

21. Practical Example — Medical Negligence

Suppose:

Doctor makes a negligent diagnostic decision
+
Hospital fails to maintain proper monitoring
+
Patient ignores necessary follow-up

Permanent injury.

The court might conclude:

doctor contributed;

hospital contributed;

patient also contributed.

Article 253 allows the court to consider both multiple defendants and claimant contribution. (UAE Legislation)

22. Practical Example — Autonomous Technology

Consider:

AI developer creates defective model
+
Data provider supplies defective data
+
Platform deploys the model without safeguards
+
Operator ignores warnings

Customer suffers financial loss.

The court should separately examine:

developer's duty;

data provider's duty;

platform's duty;

operator's duty;

causal contribution;

claimant's conduct;

actual damage.

The fact that all actors participated in one AI system does not automatically mean equal liability.

23. Role of Expert Evidence

Expert evidence is particularly important when apportionment involves technical questions.

For example:

Engineer A says defect was 60% caused by design.

Engineer B says design contributed only 20%.

The court is not automatically bound by either expert.

The court determines the legal responsibility after considering:

expert evidence;

contracts;

technical records;

correspondence;

inspections;

photographs;

project documents;

witness evidence.

Thus:

Expert evidence assists apportionment; the court performs the legal apportionment.

24. Factors Relevant to Judicial Apportionment

A UAE court may need to consider:

1. Degree of fault

Was the conduct minor, ordinary or serious?

2. Causal contribution

How materially did it contribute?

3. Control

Who controlled the relevant risk?

4. Knowledge

Who knew or should have known?

5. Ability to prevent harm

Who could reasonably have prevented the damage?

6. Contractual role

What was each party obligated to do?

7. Professional role

Was the defendant an architect, doctor, engineer, auditor or other professional?

8. Timing

Did the defendant's conduct occur before or after the damage?

9. Claimant contribution

Did the claimant contribute?

10. Nature of damage

Is the damage divisible or indivisible?

25. Important Distinction: Equal Does Not Mean Fair in Every Case

Article 253 allows equal liability, but equal allocation is not necessarily the same as proving that every party contributed equally.

For example:

A caused 80% of the damage and B caused 20%.

A court may allocate responsibility proportionately if the evidence permits.

But where individual shares cannot reliably be determined, equal allocation may be considered appropriate under the statutory framework.

This is why evidence is central to apportionment.

26. Contribution Between Defendants

Suppose A and B are jointly and severally liable for AED 1 million.

The claimant recovers the entire amount from A.

A may then seek contribution or recourse against B according to the applicable legal rules and their respective responsibility.

This produces two separate questions:

Question 1

How much can the claimant recover?

Question 2

How should the ultimate burden be distributed between the responsible defendants?

The two questions should not be confused.

27. Multi-Party Liability and Settlement

Settlement creates additional complexity.

Suppose:

A settles with claimant;

B remains a defendant;

C is also alleged to be responsible.

The legal consequences depend upon:

settlement wording;

whether the settlement fully discharges liability;

applicable law;

whether the settling party's liability was joint;

rights of contribution.

The 2026 Union Properties v Trinkler decision provides a useful modern discussion of settlement and alleged joint liability under UAE law, including the effect of a settlement with some jointly liable parties. (Bailii)

28. Multi-Party Liability and Insurance

Insurance can complicate the picture.

There may be:

primary wrongdoer;

employer;

insurer;

reinsurer;

professional indemnity provider.

The insurer's obligation is generally derived from the insurance contract and applicable insurance legislation; it should not simply be treated as another tortfeasor.

The recent Dubai Court of Cassation No. 377/2025 medical case demonstrates this procedural distinction: the defendants attempted to join an insurer for indemnity under a medical malpractice policy, while the underlying liability dispute concerned medical negligence. (Al Tamimi & Company)

29. Multi-Party Liability and Criminal Conduct

Civil liability can coexist with criminal liability.

For example:

Employee commits fraud → company suffers loss → several persons participated.

A criminal conviction may establish certain facts relevant to subsequent civil proceedings, but the civil court must still determine the civil consequences and recoverable loss under the applicable civil rules.

The current Civil Transactions Law expressly separates civil liability from criminal liability: the existence of criminal liability does not itself eliminate or necessarily determine the scope of civil compensation.

30. Key Principles for Examinations

Principle 1

Several defendants do not automatically mean equal liability.

Principle 2

Each defendant's legally relevant conduct must be established.

Principle 3

Each defendant's conduct must have a causal connection with the common harm.

Principle 4

The court may allocate liability according to shares.

Principle 5

The court may impose equal responsibility.

Principle 6

The court may impose joint and several responsibility.

Principle 7

Claimant contribution can reduce or eliminate compensation.

Principle 8

The unity of the damage is important in joint-liability analysis.

Principle 9

Timing of participation matters.

Principle 10

A person cannot ordinarily be made responsible merely because they are associated with other wrongdoers.

Principle 11

Technical expert evidence can assist the court but does not replace judicial determination.

Principle 12

Older Article 291 authorities should be read alongside current Article 253.

31. Case-Law Revision Table

The mainland UAE authorities should be given primary weight when answering a question about onshore UAE civil law. DIFC and ADGM cases are useful for comparison and illustration but are not automatically binding on mainland Federal or Dubai courts. (DIFC Courts)

32. Exam Formula

A useful formula is:

Multi-Party Liability = Multiple Actors + Individual Fault/Duty + Causal Contribution + Common Damage + Judicial Allocation

And the allocation process can be remembered as:

Identify → Prove → Connect → Apportion → Compensate → Recourse

Where:

Identify = identify every potentially responsible party;

Prove = establish each party's relevant fault/duty;

Connect = establish causation;

Apportion = determine proportional, equal or joint-and-several liability;

Compensate = determine recoverable damage;

Recourse = resolve the ultimate burden among defendants.

33. Conclusion

Multi-party liability apportionment under UAE civil law is a flexible system designed to deal with situations in which several persons contribute to one harm.

The current starting point is Article 253 of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which expressly permits the court to:

allocate liability according to each person's share;

impose equal liability; or

impose joint and several liability.

It also permits reduction or denial of compensation where the injured party contributed to or aggravated the harm. (UAE Legislation)

The older jurisprudence under Article 291 remains valuable, particularly Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Appeal No. 309/2016, because it emphasises that joint responsibility requires more than mere association with the relevant transaction: the fault of each person must contribute to the common damage. (Bailii)

One-line conclusion for exams

Under UAE civil law, multi-party liability is determined by identifying the legally responsible actors, establishing each actor's causal contribution to the common harm, considering the claimant's own contribution, and then allowing the court under Article 253 to impose proportionate, equal, or joint-and-several liability according to the circumstances and evidence.