Civil Law and UAE: Multiple Tortfeasors and Apportionment Complexity

1. Introduction

Multiple tortfeasors are two or more persons whose separate acts or omissions contribute to the same injury or loss. Apportionment concerns the way responsibility for that loss is allocated among those responsible.

This becomes particularly difficult where:

several negligent persons contribute to one injury;

one tortfeasor is an employee and another is a principal or employer;

different wrongful acts occur at different times;

the claimant also contributes to the loss;

causation is uncertain;

one tortfeasor is insolvent;

liability is joint and several rather than proportionate;

an insurer has already paid part of the loss;

a settlement has been reached with one defendant;

contractual and tortious duties overlap.

Under the current UAE Civil Transactions Law, Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025, Article 253 expressly addresses multiple persons responsible for harm. It provides that each may be liable according to their share, while allowing the court to impose equal or joint-and-several liability; it also permits reduction or denial of compensation where the injured party contributed to the harm. (UAE Legislation) 

This is a significant development because it gives the court flexibility rather than imposing one rigid mathematical formula.

2. Meaning of Multiple Tortfeasors

A tortfeasor is a person whose wrongful act causes legally compensable harm.

Where two or more persons contribute to the same damage, several models may arise.

Example

Suppose:

Contractor A negligently damages a building;

Engineer B negligently approves defective work;

Consultant C negligently fails to identify the defect;

the owner fails to take reasonable steps to mitigate the damage.

The final loss is AED 10 million.

The court may need to determine:

whether A is liable;

whether B is liable;

whether C is liable;

whether their acts caused the same loss;

whether liability should be apportioned;

whether they should be jointly and severally liable;

whether the claimant's conduct reduces compensation.

3. Statutory Foundation Under the Current UAE Civil Transactions Law

Article 253 — Multiple Responsible Persons

The current Civil Transactions Law provides:

Where multiple persons are responsible for harm, each is liable in proportion to their share, while the court may order equal or joint-and-several liability.

The same Article permits reduction or complete denial of compensation where the injured party contributed to causing or aggravating the damage. (UAE Legislation)

This creates three principal possibilities:

Model 1 — Proportionate liability

A = 30%

B = 40%

C = 30%

Model 2 — Equal liability

A = 1/3

B = 1/3

C = 1/3

Model 3 — Joint and several liability

The claimant may recover the legally recoverable amount from one or more liable defendants, subject to the applicable rules concerning contribution and double recovery.

Thus, the UAE framework combines apportionment with joint-and-several liability.

4. Historical Position Under the 1985 Civil Transactions Law

The former Article 291 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 provided that where several persons were responsible for a harmful act:

each would be liable according to their share;

the judge could impose equal liability;

or joint/several liability.

The official historical text states this expressly. (UAE Legislation)

The current Article 253 substantially preserves this basic conceptual approach while placing it within the new 2025 Civil Transactions Law.

Important transition point

Because the 2025 Civil Transactions Law came into force on 1 June 2026, the precise substantive and transitional rules applicable to an older tort must be checked according to the date and circumstances of the harmful event. (UAE Legislation)

5. Difference Between Joint, Several and Joint-and-Several Liability

This distinction is fundamental.

A. Several liability

Each defendant is responsible only for the portion legally attributed to that defendant.

Example:

A: 40%

B: 35%

C: 25%

Claim = AED 10 million.

Potential allocation:

A → AED 4m

B → AED 3.5m

C → AED 2.5m.

B. Joint liability

The defendants may be treated collectively for the obligation, depending on the applicable legal basis.

C. Joint and several liability

The claimant can generally pursue the recoverable obligation against one or more jointly-and-severally liable defendants, subject to the prohibition against double recovery.

The paying defendant may then have a contribution claim against other responsible parties.

This creates two separate relationships:

Claimant → Tortfeasors

External liability

and

Tortfeasor A → Tortfeasors B/C

Internal contribution

That distinction is central to apportionment.

6. Causation Is the First Problem

Before apportionment, the claimant normally has to establish that each defendant is legally responsible for the relevant harm.

The court therefore asks:

Did Defendant A's conduct legally contribute to the damage?

Then:

Did Defendant B's conduct legally contribute to the damage?

Then:

Did Defendant C's conduct legally contribute to the damage?

Only after responsibility is established does the question of allocation become meaningful.

Thus:

Wrongful act → Duty/breach → Causation → Damage → Responsibility → Apportionment

7. Concurrent Causation

Concurrent causation exists when different acts combine to produce one injury.

Example

A driver drives negligently.

At the same time:

a road contractor leaves an unsafe obstruction;

another driver is speeding.

A collision occurs.

The court may need to determine whether:

each act was causative;

one act was merely background;

one act was sufficient by itself;

the acts combined to produce the injury.

This is one of the hardest aspects of multiple-tortfeasor litigation.

8. Divisible and Indivisible Harm

A crucial distinction is whether the loss can be divided.

Divisible harm

The court can identify separate losses.

Example:

Defendant A causes AED 2m property damage.

Defendant B causes a separate AED 1m loss.

Apportionment is comparatively easier.

Indivisible harm

The defendants' conduct combines to produce one inseparable injury.

Example:

Three negligent actors collectively cause one catastrophic injury.

Apportionment becomes substantially more difficult.

The UAE's Article 253 gives the court flexibility by allowing proportionate, equal or joint-and-several responsibility. (UAE Legislation)

9. Case Law 1 — Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate

Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150

This is a useful UAE-based authority concerning joint-and-several liability in a negligence context.

The claimant alleged that an error by a leasing officer resulted in the wrong premises being identified in an AutoCAD drawing.

The DIFC Court considered the relationship between the landlord and its appointed agent and proceeded on the basis that vicarious liability and joint-and-several liability applied. The case also considered contributory negligence and the prohibition against double recovery under the DIFC Law of Obligations. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Where multiple defendants are legally responsible for the same loss, the claimant's rights against them and the internal allocation of responsibility are separate questions.

Importance

This demonstrates:

Vicarious liability + multiple defendants + joint-and-several liability + contributory negligence

within one dispute.

10. Case Law 2 — Corinth Pipeworks v Afras and Kumar

Corinth Pipeworks SA / Barclays Bank Plc v Afras Ltd & Radhakrishnan Kumar [2010] DIFC CFI 024

This is one of the most useful authorities on contribution between multiple liable parties.

Barclays had paid approximately USD 4 million to settle claims made against it and sought contribution from Afras and Mr Kumar.

The DIFC Court considered Article 14 of the DIFC Law of Obligations, which permits a person who settles a claim to recover contribution from another person who would have been liable for the same loss.

The contribution is assessed according to what the court considers just, having regard to that person's responsibility for the loss. (DIFC Courts)

The Court ultimately awarded Barclays approximately USD 3.9 million plus interest against Afras and Kumar.

Principle

External liability and internal contribution are different questions.

A claimant may recover from a liable defendant, while that defendant may subsequently seek contribution from another responsible party.

11. Case Law 3 — Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen

Al Khorafi & Others v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd & Bank Sarasin & Co. Ltd [2009] DIFC CFI 026

This extensive investment-mis-selling litigation involved multiple defendants and allegations of negligence.

The Court considered allegations against Sarasin-Alpen and individuals and the possible vicarious liability of the bank for conduct of employees and agents. (DIFC Courts)

Later proceedings recorded that BSA and Bank J Safra Sarasin were held jointly and severally liable for compensatory losses suffered by the Khorafi claimants. (DIFC Courts)

One defendant subsequently paid a substantial amount in satisfaction of its joint-and-several liability and pursued contribution-related rights in the insolvency of another liable entity. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Joint-and-several liability can create an important post-judgment contribution relationship between co-defendants.

Practical significance

The claimant's recovery question and the defendants' ultimate economic burden are not necessarily identical.

12. Case Law 4 — Eason / Bank Sarasin-Alpen Proceedings

Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd v Sassoon & Others, CFI 009/2023

The subsequent litigation following the Khorafi proceedings demonstrates the practical complexity created when:

two defendants are jointly and severally liable;

one pays the claimant;

the paying defendant seeks contribution;

the other defendant enters insolvency.

The DIFC Court record specifically describes the compensatory damages as having been awarded on a joint-and-several basis and records the payment of approximately USD 24.58 million by one defendant in satisfaction of that liability. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Apportionment does not disappear merely because the claimant has a joint-and-several judgment.

The allocation of the ultimate burden can continue through contribution or insolvency proceedings.

13. Case Law 5 — Aegis Resources v Union Bank of India

Aegis Resources DMCC v Union Bank of India (DIFC Branch) [2020] DIFC CFI 004

The case involved alleged negligence and the question of contributory negligence.

The Court considered Article 17(2) of the DIFC Law of Obligations, under which liability for negligence may be reduced according to the extent to which the claimant's negligent acts or omissions contributed to the loss. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Apportionment is not limited to dividing responsibility among defendants.

It may also involve:

Defendant responsibility + claimant responsibility.

Thus:

Total damage = 100%

may become:

defendant(s): 70%

claimant: 30%.

14. Case Law 6 — Khaled Salem Musabeh Al Mheiri v El Araj & Cameron

Khaled Salem Musabeh Humaid Al Mheiri v Mohammad Ezelddine El Araj & John Cameron [2021] DIFC CFI 057

This case illustrates the opposite problem: not every multi-party dispute creates joint-and-several liability.

The Court expressly rejected the proposition that the defendants were jointly and severally liable because they had entered into separate indemnity agreements.

The Court held that the agreements were separate and there was therefore no joint-and-several liability or corresponding subrogation consequence on that basis. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Multiple defendants do not automatically become joint-and-several tortfeasors.

The legal source of each defendant's liability must be identified.

15. Case Law 7 — EBI SA / Ecobank v Lal Mahal

EBI SA, France & Others v Lal Mahal DMCC & Others [2016] DIFC CFI 024

The Court examined claims against multiple defendants separately and varied an earlier default judgment, including the question of joint-and-several liability.

The judgment demonstrates that simply naming several defendants does not mean that the court must impose joint-and-several liability upon all of them. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

The court must determine:

each defendant's legal basis of liability;

each defendant's connection with the loss;

whether joint-and-several liability is legally justified.

16. Case Law 8 — Haya Spa and Double Recovery

The Haya Spa decision is also important for the principle that the claimant should not obtain double recovery.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly provides that where two or more persons are liable for the same loss, recovery from one liable party must be taken into account when determining recovery against others. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Joint-and-several liability does not mean double compensation.

The claimant is entitled to compensation for the loss, not multiple recoveries of the same loss.

17. Apportionment Formula Under UAE Civil Law

A simplified analytical formula is:

Step 1

Determine:

Total compensable damage

Step 2

Identify all legally responsible persons.

Step 3

Determine each person's causal contribution.

Step 4

Determine whether the harm is divisible or indivisible.

Step 5

Consider claimant contribution.

Step 6

Select the legally appropriate liability model:

proportionate;

equal;

joint;

joint and several.

Step 7

Prevent double recovery.

Step 8

Resolve contribution between defendants.

18. Hypothetical Example

Suppose the claimant suffers:

AED 10 million loss

Three defendants are responsible.

The court finds:

A → 50%

B → 30%

C → 20%

Under proportionate allocation:

But if the court imposes joint-and-several liability, the claimant's recovery rights may be broader.

The defendants' internal contribution can then be calculated according to their respective responsibility.

19. Claimant's Contributory Conduct

Article 253 also addresses the claimant's contribution to the harm.

Suppose:

defendants caused 80% of the loss;

claimant's own conduct caused or aggravated 20%.

The court may reduce compensation accordingly.

This is fundamentally different from saying:

“There are two defendants, so each automatically pays 50%.”

The relevant inquiry is causation and responsibility, not merely the number of parties.

The current Article 253 expressly permits reduction or complete denial of compensation where the injured person contributed to causing or aggravating the harm. (UAE Legislation)

20. Apportionment of Causation vs Apportionment of Damages

These concepts should be separated.

Causation apportionment

Who caused the loss?

Damage apportionment

How much loss is attributable to each cause?

Liability apportionment

How should the legal burden be distributed among defendants?

Contribution

How should one defendant recover from another after paying the claimant?

They are related but not identical.

21. Vicarious Liability and Multiple Tortfeasors

An employer can potentially be liable for an employee's wrongful conduct under applicable law.

This creates another layer:

Employee

Employer

Independent contractor

Third party

may all become involved in one dispute.

The court must identify the precise legal basis for each defendant.

Haya Spa illustrates this interaction between an authorised leasing officer, landlord and appointed agent, with the court proceeding on the basis of vicarious and joint-and-several liability. (DIFC Courts)

22. Principal and Agent

A principal may incur responsibility for an agent's conduct where the relevant legal requirements are satisfied.

But:

Principal + agent ≠ automatically two independent tortfeasors.

The court must determine:

agency;

scope of authority;

wrongful conduct;

vicarious liability;

direct liability;

causation.

This distinction can materially affect apportionment.

23. Employer and Employee

Consider an employee negligently causing damage while performing employment duties.

Potential claims may involve:

employee;

employer;

insurer;

contractor.

The claimant's strategy may be to sue all potentially responsible parties.

The court then determines whether liability is:

direct;

vicarious;

joint;

several;

joint and several.

24. Professional Negligence

Multiple tortfeasor problems frequently arise in:

construction;

engineering;

medicine;

banking;

insurance;

auditing;

financial services.

Example — construction

Developer

→ Contractor

→ Subcontractor

→ Architect

→ Engineer

→ Consultant.

A structural defect may result from several failures.

The court must determine whether the losses are:

independently caused;

cumulatively caused;

indivisible;

divisible.

This makes expert evidence particularly important.

25. Medical Multiple-Tortfeasor Example

Imagine:

Hospital fails to diagnose a condition.

Doctor delays treatment.

Another healthcare provider administers inappropriate treatment.

Patient's own conduct aggravates the injury.

The court may need to determine:

Initial injury

Medical negligence

Later aggravation

Patient contribution

The resulting damages cannot automatically be divided equally.

26. Construction Multiple-Tortfeasor Example

Suppose a building develops major structural damage because:

architect negligently designed a component;

engineer failed to identify the defect;

contractor improperly constructed it;

developer approved defective materials.

The court may use:

expert evidence;

contractual documents;

project records;

technical standards;

causation analysis.

The allocation may differ depending on the evidence.

27. Contribution Between Tortfeasors

Contribution is conceptually different from the claimant's compensation claim.

Claimant's claim

Claimant → A/B/C

Contribution claim

A → B/C

The DIFC's Law of Obligations provides a particularly clear example: a person who settles a claim may seek contribution from another person who would have been liable for the same loss, with the amount determined according to what is just and the person's responsibility. Corinth Pipeworks applied this principle. (DIFC Courts)

28. Why Insolvency Creates Apportionment Complexity

Suppose:

A = 50%

B = 30%

C = 20%.

C becomes insolvent.

If the claimant has a joint-and-several right, the claimant's recovery may not necessarily be limited to C's 20% share.

But internally, the paying defendants may face difficulties recovering contribution from an insolvent co-defendant.

The Khorafi / Bank Sarasin-Alpen proceedings illustrate this real-world problem. One jointly liable defendant paid a substantial amount while another liable institution entered insolvency, generating contribution issues. (DIFC Courts)

29. Settlement With One Tortfeasor

Settlement can create complicated questions.

Suppose:

A;

B;

C

are jointly and severally liable.

Claimant settles with A.

Questions then arise:

How much has the claimant recovered?

What remains recoverable?

Does the settlement release B and C?

Can B seek contribution from A?

Has the claimant already been fully compensated?

What happens to contribution rights?

The precise answer depends upon the applicable legal regime, settlement terms and judgment structure.

30. Double Recovery

A fundamental principle is:

Compensation is designed to repair the loss, not multiply it.

Suppose:

Total loss = AED 10 million.

Claimant receives:

AED 6m from A;

AED 4m from B.

The claimant ordinarily cannot then recover another AED 10m for the same loss simply because C was also liable.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly recognises this principle, as discussed in Haya Spa. (DIFC Courts)

31. Moral Damage and Multiple Tortfeasors

The current Civil Transactions Law expressly recognises moral harm.

Article 254 includes harm involving:

freedom;

honour;

reputation;

social standing;

financial status.

It also provides for compensation for specified close relatives for moral harm resulting from death or incapacity. (UAE Legislation)

Where multiple defendants cause moral harm, the court may therefore face the same questions:

Who caused the harm?

Was the harm indivisible?

What contribution did each defendant make?

Should liability be proportionate or joint and several?

32. Loss of Profit

Article 255 provides that compensation covers loss and lost profit where these are the natural consequence of the harmful act. (UAE Legislation)

For multiple tortfeasors, lost-profit analysis can become particularly difficult.

Example:

A negligent act causes a factory to close.

Possible losses include:

physical damage;

business interruption;

lost profits;

contractual losses;

reputational damage.

Each category may require separate causal analysis.

33. Apportionment and Mitigation

The claimant has a responsibility not to unnecessarily aggravate the loss.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly addresses mitigation and contributory loss, and Aegis Resources considered the reduction of damages for claimant negligence. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore:

Defendant's negligence

Claimant's failure to mitigate

can produce a reduced award.

34. Apportionment in Joint-and-Several Liability

A useful conceptual distinction is:

External relationship

Claimant vs defendants

The claimant may have a right to recover the legally determined compensation from jointly-and-severally liable defendants.

Internal relationship

Defendant vs co-defendants

Contribution determines the ultimate distribution of the burden.

Thus:

Joint and several liability concerns recovery; contribution concerns allocation.

This distinction is extremely important in examination answers.

35. Apportionment and Insurance

Insurance can add another layer.

Suppose:

Tortfeasor A is insured.

Tortfeasor B is uninsured.

Tortfeasor C has limited insurance.

The claimant may seek recovery from liable parties, while insurers may become involved through:

indemnity;

subrogation;

contribution;

policy limits.

The court must distinguish the underlying tort liability from the insurance relationship.

36. Apportionment and Experts

Expert evidence is often crucial.

Experts may assist the court in determining:

technical causation;

percentage contribution;

medical causation;

construction responsibility;

financial loss;

business interruption.

However:

Experts do not determine legal liability.

They provide technical evidence; the court determines the legal consequences.

37. Court's Discretion

Article 253 is important because it gives the court flexibility.

The court may consider:

causal contribution;

seriousness of conduct;

nature of each breach;

claimant's conduct;

whether harm is divisible;

evidence;

fairness;

relationship between defendants.

The court therefore need not blindly apply:

Number of tortfeasors = equal shares.

Instead:

Responsibility + causation + statutory framework → allocation.

38. Current UAE Model Compared With DIFC Model

The DIFC cases should therefore be used as illustrative UAE free-zone authorities, not automatically as binding interpretations of Article 253 of the mainland Civil Transactions Law.

39. Key Case-Law Principles

Haya Spa v Harper/Hasan

Multiple defendants can be jointly and severally liable where the legal relationship and applicable law support it. (DIFC Courts)

Corinth Pipeworks v Afras/Kumar

A party settling a common liability can seek contribution from another responsible party; contribution is assessed according to responsibility and justice. (DIFC Courts)

Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen

Joint-and-several liability can result in substantial recovery against one defendant followed by contribution issues. (DIFC Courts)

Bank Sarasin-Alpen v Sassoon

Insolvency of one jointly liable party can complicate contribution and ultimate allocation. (DIFC Courts)

Aegis Resources v Union Bank

Claimant negligence can reduce damages according to its contribution to the loss. (DIFC Courts)

Al Mheiri v El Araj/Cameron

Multiple defendants do not automatically become jointly and severally liable; separate legal obligations may produce separate liabilities. (DIFC Courts)

EBI/Ecobank v Lal Mahal

The court must examine the claim against each defendant and cannot assume joint-and-several liability merely because several defendants are named. (DIFC Courts)

40. Practical Apportionment Framework

A UAE court analysing multiple tortfeasors can conceptually proceed through the following sequence:

Step 1 — Identify the harmful event

What happened?

Step 2 — Identify every potential tortfeasor

Who acted or failed to act?

Step 3 — Establish duty and breach

What legal obligation did each person owe?

Step 4 — Establish causation

Did each person's conduct contribute to the loss?

Step 5 — Determine the damage

What actual loss resulted?

Step 6 — Identify claimant contribution

Did the injured person cause or aggravate the damage?

Step 7 — Determine whether harm is divisible

Can separate losses be attributed to different defendants?

Step 8 — Determine liability structure

proportionate;

equal;

joint;

joint and several.

Step 9 — Calculate compensation

Loss + natural lost profit + applicable moral damage.

Step 10 — Prevent double recovery

Amounts already recovered must be accounted for.

Step 11 — Resolve contribution

Determine the ultimate burden between defendants.

41. Important Distinction: “Share of Fault” vs “Share of Payment”

These are not necessarily identical.

For example:

A court may determine:

A = 20% responsibility;

B = 30%;

C = 50%.

But if liability is joint and several, the claimant may have broader recovery rights than those percentages suggest.

The percentages may become particularly important for contribution between defendants.

Therefore:

Causal responsibility ≠ necessarily the claimant's immediate recovery route.

42. Major Difficulties in UAE Multiple-Tortfeasor Litigation

1. Causal uncertainty

It may be difficult to prove which defendant caused which part of the damage.

2. Indivisible harm

One injury may result from several simultaneous causes.

3. Claimant fault

The claimant may have contributed to the damage.

4. Vicarious liability

Employer and employee relationships can complicate attribution.

5. Insolvency

A liable defendant may lack assets.

6. Settlement

Settlement with one defendant can affect remaining claims.

7. Insurance

Insurance may introduce subrogation and contribution questions.

8. Cross-border liability

Different defendants may fall under different jurisdictions.

9. Contract/tort overlap

A defendant may owe contractual and tortious obligations simultaneously.

10. Quantification

Even after liability is established, allocating financial loss can be difficult.

43. Exam-Oriented Example

Facts

A construction project suffers AED 20 million damage.

The court finds:

Contractor → 40%

Engineer → 25%

Architect → 20%

Developer → 15%

The developer also contributed to the damage by approving defective materials.

Analysis

Total loss: AED 20m.

Potential proportionate allocation:

Contractor → AED 8m

Engineer → AED 5m

Architect → AED 4m

Developer → AED 3m

But if the legal requirements for joint-and-several liability are satisfied, the claimant's recovery rights may not be limited to these percentages.

The ultimate allocation between the defendants can then be dealt with through contribution.

If the claimant itself contributed to the loss, Article 253 permits the court to reduce compensation. (UAE Legislation)

44. Key Legal Formula

Multiple Tortfeasor Liability

Wrongful Conduct

↓

Duty + Breach

↓

Causation

↓

Damage

↓

Identify All Responsible Persons

↓

Assess Claimant Contribution

↓

Determine Divisible/Indivisible Loss

↓

Proportionate / Equal / Joint-and-Several Liability

↓

Compensation

↓

No Double Recovery

↓

Contribution Between Tortfeasors

45. Conclusion

Multiple tortfeasors and apportionment complexity under UAE civil law involve much more than simply dividing compensation equally between defendants.

The current UAE Civil Transactions Law expressly allows the court, where multiple persons are responsible for harm, to consider their respective shares while also permitting equal or joint-and-several liability. It further recognises claimant contribution as a reason to reduce or deny compensation. (UAE Legislation)

The principal legal concepts are:

Multiple causation

Concurrent tortfeasors

Divisible and indivisible harm

Proportionate liability

Equal liability

Joint liability

Joint-and-several liability

Contributory conduct

Vicarious liability

Contribution between defendants

Mitigation

No double recovery

Insurance and subrogation

Insolvency and contribution risk

The central distinction for examination purposes is:

Joint-and-several liability determines the claimant's recovery rights, whereas contribution and apportionment determine how the ultimate economic burden may be distributed among responsible parties.

Short Revision Table

Important qualification: Article 253 is the current mainland UAE statutory foundation. The cases discussed above are predominantly DIFC authorities, used to illustrate how UAE-based courts have addressed joint-and-several liability, contribution, claimant fault and multiple-party responsibility. They should not be treated as binding interpretations of the new mainland Article 253 merely because they are UAE cases.