Civil Law and UAE: Network Causality in Civil Liability Theory

1. Introduction

Network causality describes situations in which civil damage is not produced by one isolated act, but by a network of interconnected acts, omissions, decisions, persons, systems, and events.

Traditional causation can be represented as:

A → B → Damage

Network causality is more complex:

A ─┐
B ─┼→ C ─→ D → Final Damage
E ─┘

For example:

Contractor's defective work + consultant's negligent approval + owner's failure to maintain the property + later third-party intervention → building damage.

The legal question is not simply “Who caused the damage?” but:

1. What acts contributed to the damage?
2. Which actors had legally relevant responsibility?
3. Which links are sufficiently connected to the damage?
4. Did an intervening event break the causal chain?
5. Did the injured person contribute to the loss?
6. Should liability be divided or imposed jointly and severally?

The current UAE framework is particularly suitable for analysing this problem because Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 on the Civil Transactions Law, effective 1 June 2026, expressly distinguishes direct and causative harm and deals with multiple persons responsible for the same harm.

2. Current UAE Statutory Framework

Article 245 — Harmful-Act Liability

Article 245 provides that the harmful-act provisions apply to civil liability arising from harmful acts committed by natural or legal persons, subject to special legislation. It also separates civil liability from criminal liability.

Thus, network causality can potentially arise in:

• negligence;
• property damage;
• construction accidents;
• professional liability;
• financial misconduct;
• product-related harm;
• digital/cyber incidents;
• environmental damage;
• medical liability;
• employer/employee situations.

3. Article 246 — Basic Compensation Principle

Article 246 establishes the fundamental rule:

an act causing harm to another creates an obligation to compensate.

The provision is broad enough to accommodate complex causal situations because the harmful event does not necessarily have to be produced by only one person.

4. Article 247 — Direct and Causative Harm

Article 247 is particularly important for network causality.

It recognises that harm may occur:

• directly, or
• by causation.

Where harm is direct, the provision establishes a strong basis for liability. Where harm is causative, additional statutory requirements apply. It also addresses situations where a direct actor and a causal actor combine.

This creates an important analytical distinction:

Direct cause

Actor → immediate damage

Causative contribution

Actor → intermediate event → damage

Network causality

Actor A + Actor B + Actor C + intervening event → combined damage

5. Article 249 — External Causes

Article 249 addresses an important limitation on causation.

A person may avoid liability where the harm resulted from an external cause beyond that person's control, including:

• act of God;
• sudden accident;
• force majeure;
• act of a third party;
• act of the injured person,

subject to applicable law or contractual provisions.

This is extremely important in network causality because a later event may either:

1. merely contribute to the existing harm, or
2. become sufficiently independent to affect legal attribution.

6. Article 253 — Multiple Responsible Persons

Article 253 is perhaps the most important provision for the modern network-causality analysis.

Where multiple persons are responsible for the harm:

• each may be liable according to their share;
• the court may determine equal responsibility;
• the court may impose joint and several liability.

The same article permits reduction or denial of compensation where the injured person contributed to causing or aggravating the harm.

Therefore, the current UAE law expressly recognises that civil harm may have multiple legally responsible contributors.

7. Article 255 — Natural Consequence of Harm

Article 255 provides that compensation is assessed according to the loss suffered and lost profit where such loss is a natural consequence of the harmful act.

This gives causation a second function.

Causation determines:

whether liability exists

and also:

which losses can be compensated.

Thus:

Causation is both a liability filter and a damages filter.

8. What Is Network Causality?

Network causality can be divided into five levels.

Level 1 — Initial conduct

Example:

A contractor uses defective materials.

Level 2 — Secondary conduct

A consultant negligently approves the materials.

Level 3 — Intermediate event

The building develops structural problems.

Level 4 — Additional contribution

The owner fails to undertake necessary maintenance.

Level 5 — Final damage

Part of the building collapses and causes financial loss.

The court must determine whether:

Contractor + Consultant + Owner

created a legally relevant causal network.

9. Network Causality Is Different From Simple Causation

10. Six Major Case Laws

Case 1 — Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150

This is one of the clearest UAE-based authorities for analysing network causality.

The claimant received incorrect information concerning an AutoCAD drawing. The defendants argued that subsequent actions by:

• the contractor;
• the Body Corporate;
• DIFC authorities;

broke the causal connection.

The Court applied the DIFC Law of Obligations and considered whether the defendants' conduct remained a “but-for” and substantial cause of the claimant's loss. It concluded that the defendants' conduct caused losses for the earlier period, while a later event affected the causal connection for subsequent losses.

Importance

This case demonstrates that causation can be time-sensitive.

The same defendant may be responsible for:

Loss A

but not necessarily:

Loss B

because a later event changed the causal structure.

This is a classic feature of network causality.

Case 2 — Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC [2019] DIFC CFI 054

The Court considered UAE-law principles of harmful acts and referred to the fundamental requirement that civil liability involves:

1. harmful conduct;
2. harm/damage; and
3. a causal relationship between them.

The judgment discussed the UAE Civil Code's harmful-act framework and the requirement for a causal connection between conduct and damage.

Importance

The case demonstrates that the existence of damage alone does not establish responsibility.

The claimant must connect:

Defendant's conduct → legally recognised harm.

In network causality, this test must be applied separately to each potentially responsible actor.

Case 3 — BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC [2021] DIFC CFI 106

This construction dispute is highly relevant.

The Court considered UAE-law principles concerning breach, damage and causal connection and referred to Dubai Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019 and Dubai Commercial Appeal 445/2020/1034.

The Court stressed that liability requires the relevant elements to coexist and that a breach, by itself, is insufficient to establish entitlement to compensation. It also rejected claims where the alleged breaches were not shown to have caused the claimed financial losses.

Importance

This is particularly important for network causality:

Every link in the alleged causal network must be connected to the specific loss claimed.

For example:

Delay → extra costs

cannot simply be assumed.

The claimant must establish:

specific breach → specific consequence → specific financial loss.

Case 4 — Amira C Foods International DMCC v IDBI Bank Limited [2018] DIFC CFI 027 / IDBI Bank v Amira C Foods [2019] DIFC CA 014

The dispute involved complex allegations concerning banking conduct and loss.

The Court considered alternative explanations of causation and recognised the need to consider competing causal theories when determining whether the defendant's conduct caused the loss.

The Court of Appeal subsequently considered the causal connection between breach and benefits or mitigation when assessing damages.

Importance

This case illustrates competing causal networks.

A claimant may say:

Defendant's conduct caused the loss.

The defendant may respond:

Market conditions, claimant decisions, third-party conduct or another event caused the loss.

The court must evaluate the competing causal explanations rather than simply identify a temporal sequence.

Case 5 — Shihab Khalil v Shuaa Capital PSC [2009] DIFC CFI 017

The Court explained that a negligence claim requires both:

• want of due care; and
• causal loss resulting from that carelessness.

The causal impact of the defendant's conduct was treated as an essential part of the cause of action.

Importance

This principle prevents causal over-expansion.

A defendant cannot be held liable for every consequence that happens after its conduct.

The claimant must demonstrate:

carelessness → legally relevant loss.

Case 6 — Ludiala v Lucaan Limited [2020] DIFC SCT 139

The claimant alleged psychological harm.

The Court examined the medical evidence and concluded that it did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant caused the claimed psychiatric harm. The evidence largely recorded the claimant's own attribution of the condition rather than establishing medical causation.

Importance

This illustrates evidentiary causation.

In a network of possible causes, courts require evidence capable of connecting the defendant's conduct with the particular injury.

For example:

workplace event → stress → medical condition

cannot automatically be treated as:

workplace event → medically caused condition.

The intermediate links must be established.

Case 7 — Alawwal Capital JSC v Rasmala Investment Bank Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 038

The claimant alleged that representations made by the defendant caused it to make an investment it otherwise would not have made.

The Court considered Article 10 of the DIFC Law of Obligations, under which the claimant had to establish that, but for the defendant's conduct, the loss would not have occurred and that the conduct was a substantial cause of the loss.

Importance

This demonstrates a decision-chain causal network:

Representation → reliance → investment decision → investment outcome → financial loss

The claimant must establish the relevant links rather than jumping directly from representation to financial loss.

Case 8 — Dr. Lothar Ludwig Hardt and Hardt Trading FZE v Hussain Al Habib Sajwani & Peter Riddoch [2009] DIFC CFI 036

The case concerned alleged representations and duties of care and discussed the importance of identifying an essential part of the tortious cause of action, including conduct and resulting damage.

Importance

It is useful for understanding that causation operates not merely as an abstract philosophical concept but as part of the legal structure of the cause of action.

11. The Network Causality Model

A useful UAE civil-law analytical model is:

Stage 1 — Conduct

Identify every relevant act or omission.

↓

Stage 2 — Actors

Identify:

• individuals;
• companies;
• employees;
• contractors;
• consultants;
• manufacturers;
• professionals;
• third parties.

↓

Stage 3 — Intermediate Events

Identify events between conduct and damage.

↓

Stage 4 — Causal Connection

Ask:

Would the damage have occurred without this conduct?

↓

Stage 5 — Substantial Contribution

Ask:

Was this conduct sufficiently significant to the resulting harm?

↓

Stage 6 — Intervening Cause

Ask:

Did a later independent event change or break the causal relationship?

↓

Stage 7 — Claimant Contribution

Ask:

Did the injured person contribute to or aggravate the harm?

↓

Stage 8 — Allocation

Apply the rules concerning:

• individual responsibility;
• proportional responsibility;
• equal responsibility;
• joint and several liability.

↓

Stage 9 — Damages

Compensate only legally recoverable loss causally connected with the harmful conduct.

12. Example: Construction Network

Suppose:

Contractor uses defective concrete.

↓

Engineer negligently approves it.

↓

Developer ignores warning signs.

↓

Building develops structural cracks.

↓

Owner fails to undertake repairs.

↓

Heavy rain worsens the structural damage.

↓

Part of building collapses.

This is not simply:

Contractor → collapse.

It is a causal network.

The court may have to examine:

Article 253 is particularly relevant where multiple persons are legally responsible for the resulting harm.

13. Concurrent Causes

Two or more causes can operate simultaneously.

Example:

Defective electrical installation + improper maintenance → fire.

Neither cause necessarily has to be the sole cause.

The court can examine whether both actors materially contributed to the same damage.

This is important because “sole cause” and “legally relevant cause” are not necessarily identical concepts.

14. Sequential Causes

Sequential causation occurs where one event follows another:

A → B → C → D

Example:

Negligent medical treatment → additional injury → prolonged hospitalization → loss of income.

The court must determine whether the later consequences remain sufficiently connected with the original harmful conduct.

15. Intervening Causes

An intervening cause occurs after the defendant's conduct.

Example:

A negligently damages a machine.

Then:

B deliberately destroys the machine.

The legal question becomes:

Does B's conduct merely contribute to A's original loss, or does it become a new and independent cause of subsequent damage?

The Haya Spa decision is particularly useful because the Court examined whether subsequent events severed the causal link for later losses.

16. Claimant's Own Conduct

Network causality also includes the claimant.

Suppose:

Defendant provides incorrect technical information.

The claimant later discovers an obvious error but deliberately continues using the information.

The claimant's conduct may become relevant to:

• causation;
• contribution;
• mitigation;
• damages.

Current Article 253 expressly allows compensation to be reduced or denied where the injured party contributed to causing or aggravating the harm.

17. Network Causality and Digital Civil Liability

The concept is especially important for modern digital disputes.

Consider:

Software developer

↓

AI model

↓

Data provider

↓

Cloud provider

↓

Platform operator

↓

Automated decision

↓

Human user

↓

Financial loss

The existence of many technological components does not itself establish liability.

The legal inquiry remains:

Which person's legally relevant conduct contributed to the actual damage?

The current UAE harmful-act framework's treatment of natural and legal persons, causative harm and multiple responsible persons provides a framework for analysing such situations.

18. Network Causality and Medical Liability

Medical injury can also involve several causal factors:

Doctor's decision

Hospital system

Nursing omission

Patient's underlying condition

Delayed treatment

→

Final injury

A court must separate:

• pre-existing condition;
• medical error;
• subsequent complications;
• patient contribution;
• independent medical events.

Therefore, medical causation is often a multi-layer causal analysis rather than a simple doctor → injury relationship.

Special medical-liability legislation may apply alongside the general Civil Transactions Law framework, as Article 245 itself recognises the application of special legislation.

19. Network Causality and Multiple Defendants

Article 253 provides three broad possibilities:

Proportional liability

A = 40%

B = 35%

C = 25%

Equal liability

A = 33⅓%

B = 33⅓%

C = 33⅓%

Joint and several liability

The court may impose joint and several liability where legally appropriate.

This distinction is important because causal attribution and financial allocation are related but not identical questions.

20. Causation and Damages

A claimant might establish:

wrongful conduct

but fail to establish:

causally connected loss.

The BAM Higgs & Hill case illustrates this point particularly clearly: alleged breaches were not enough where the claimant could not connect those breaches to the large financial losses claimed.

The analytical sequence should therefore be:

Wrongful conduct → causation → specific loss → quantification

not:

Wrongful conduct → automatically all subsequent losses.

21. Network Causality and Loss of Profit

Current Article 255 includes lost profit where it is a natural consequence of the harmful act.

Suppose:

Defendant causes a factory shutdown.

The claimant seeks:

• repair costs;
• employee costs;
• lost production;
• lost contracts;
• future profits.

Each category requires its own causal analysis.

The court should not automatically assume that every financial consequence belongs to the defendant.

22. Network Causality and Evidence

The claimant generally needs evidence establishing the causal pathway.

Useful evidence may include:

• contracts;
• technical reports;
• expert evidence;
• photographs;
• medical records;
• emails;
• transaction records;
• maintenance records;
• audit reports;
• system logs;
• CCTV;
• witness testimony;
• financial records.

In complex cases, the court may need to construct a causal map from the evidence.

23. Network Causality vs Legal Attribution

These concepts should be distinguished.

Factual causation

Did the conduct actually contribute to the event?

Legal causation

Is that contribution legally sufficient to impose liability?

Attribution

To which person should the law attribute the relevant conduct?

Allocation

How should responsibility be divided among several responsible persons?

Thus:

Factual cause ≠ automatically legal responsibility.

24. Important Formula

For examination purposes, remember:

Conduct → Intermediate Event → Intervening Event → Final Harm → Causal Connection → Legal Attribution → Allocation of Responsibility → Compensation

This is the basic structure of network causality in UAE civil liability theory.

25. Network Causality and Article 247

Article 247 adds another important dimension because it expressly recognises:

• direct harm;
• causative harm;
• combination of direct and causal actors.

Therefore, UAE civil law does not necessarily require every harmful result to be traced to one simple physical cause.

The law can analyse different forms of causal participation.

26. Network Causality and External Causes

Article 249 is the counterbalance.

Where an external cause beyond the person's control is established, liability may be excluded, subject to the applicable law or agreement.

Therefore:

Network causality expands attribution

but

external-cause rules limit attribution.

The court must balance both.

27. Practical Legal Example

Facts

A shopping centre suffers water damage.

Possible causes:

1. Contractor installed defective pipes.
2. Maintenance company failed to inspect them.
3. Property manager ignored an earlier warning.
4. Tenant improperly modified the plumbing.
5. Exceptional rainfall occurred.

Causal network

Defective installation

Failure to maintain

Failure to respond to warning

Tenant modification

Rainfall

↓

Water damage

The court would need to determine:

• which causes actually contributed;
• whether any cause was independent;
• whether the rainfall constituted an external cause;
• whether the tenant aggravated the loss;
• whether multiple defendants should be liable;
• what portion of damage is attributable to each.

That is precisely why network causality is more useful than a simple one-dimensional causal model.

28. Key Case-Law Lessons

29. Relationship Between Current UAE Law and Older Cases

An important legal-research qualification is necessary.

Many of the UAE and DIFC cases discussed above arose under:

• the former Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 Civil Transactions Law, or
• DIFC legislation.

The current federal Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective 1 June 2026. Its current Articles 245–255 should therefore be treated as the primary statutory framework for present mainland UAE analysis.

Older cases remain useful for identifying enduring principles of causation, but they should not automatically be treated as direct interpretations of the new 2025 provisions.

Similarly, DIFC decisions are UAE-based authorities but are not automatically binding precedents for mainland UAE courts.

30. Conclusion

Network causality in UAE civil liability theory recognises that modern damage may arise from a combination of:

• several actors;
• several acts;
• omissions;
• intermediate events;
• external causes;
• claimant conduct;
• technological systems;
• contractual relationships.

The current Civil Transactions Law provides an especially useful statutory framework through:

• Article 246 — harmful act and compensation;
• Article 247 — direct and causative harm;
• Article 249 — external causes;
• Article 253 — multiple responsible persons and claimant contribution;
• Article 255 — loss and lost profit as natural consequences. 

The central principle can be summarised as:

A person is not necessarily responsible for every event in a causal network; liability depends on identifying the legally relevant contribution of each actor and connecting that contribution to the specific damage claimed.

Quick Revision

Network Causality =

Multiple Actors + Multiple Events + Causal Links + Intervening Causes + Claimant Contribution + Legal Attribution + Allocation of Liability

Key authorities: Haya Spa, Larmag Holding, BAM Higgs & Hill, Amira C Foods/IDBI Bank, Shihab Khalil, Ludiala, Alawwal Capital, and Dr Hardt.