Civil Law and UAE: Probabilistic Causation in Multi-Factor Damage Scenarios

1. Meaning of probabilistic causation

Probabilistic causation arises when damage has several possible or contributing causes and it is difficult to prove with certainty that one particular act alone produced the loss.

A simple case of causation is:

A → Damage

A multi-factor case may look like:

A + B + C + D → Damage

For example:

a construction defect;

poor maintenance;

extreme weather;

an independent contractor's mistake; and

the claimant's own conduct

may all contribute to the same property damage.

The legal question becomes:

How should a UAE court determine whether the defendant's conduct was sufficiently connected to the claimant's damage when several factors contributed to the outcome?

This is different from saying that causation can be established merely because a defendant's conduct was possibly responsible. Civil liability still requires legally sufficient proof of causation.

2. Current UAE legal framework

The current UAE Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which entered into force on 1 June 2026 and repealed Federal Law No. 5 of 1985. (UAE Legislation)

For practical analysis, the fundamental civil-liability sequence remains:

Fault/duty → causation → damage → remedy

The important point for probabilistic causation is that damage alone is insufficient.

A claimant must establish a legally recognised causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the damage.

Older UAE cases referring to the 1985 Civil Transactions Law should therefore be treated as historical authorities, while the 2025 Civil Transactions Law is the current statutory framework.

3. Probabilistic causation versus ordinary causation

Ordinary causation

The claimant can relatively clearly demonstrate:

"But for the defendant's conduct, this damage would not have occurred."

Probabilistic causation

The claimant may instead face:

"There were several possible causes. The defendant's conduct was one of them, but the precise contribution of each cause cannot be established with mathematical certainty."

The court must then examine the evidence and determine whether the required causal connection has been proved according to the applicable civil-law standard.

4. The importance of the "but-for" approach

A useful comparative illustration comes from DIFC law.

Article 10 of the DIFC Law of Obligations provides that a claimant must show that:

but for the defendant's conduct, the claimant would not have suffered the loss; and

the defendant's conduct was a substantial cause of the loss.

It also recognises intervening events that may break the causal chain. (DIFC Courts)

Although this is DIFC legislation rather than the onshore UAE Civil Transactions Law, it provides a particularly useful UAE-region illustration of how courts analyse complex causation.

Thus, the question is not necessarily:

"Was the defendant the only cause?"

It may be:

"Was the defendant's legally relevant conduct a sufficiently substantial cause of the loss?"

5. Multi-factor damage scenarios

Multi-factor causation commonly appears in:

Construction

Defective design + poor workmanship + delay + weather + inadequate maintenance.

Medical injury

Pre-existing condition + negligent treatment + subsequent illness.

Financial loss

Misrepresentation + market decline + investor's own decisions + economic conditions.

Cybersecurity

Weak security + employee misconduct + external hacking + inadequate monitoring.

Product liability

Manufacturing defect + improper use + inadequate maintenance + third-party modification.

Environmental damage

Pollution source A + pollution source B + natural conditions + pre-existing contamination.

Digital-platform disputes

Algorithmic decision + inaccurate data + user conduct + third-party fraud + system error.

These situations make strict one-cause analysis difficult.

6. Case Law

Case 1 — Amira C Foods International DMCC v IDBI Bank Ltd [2018] DIFC CFI 027

This is particularly relevant to probabilistic causation.

The Court discussed circumstances where negligence has been established and the resulting damage is of the type that would ordinarily be expected from that negligence.

The Court recognised that where a claimant establishes negligence and loss of a kind likely to have resulted from that negligence, a court may infer causation even where the claimant cannot demonstrate the precise mechanism by which the damage occurred. It also stressed that alternative causal explanations must be considered. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

This is a useful example of evidential inference rather than mathematical certainty.

The principle can be expressed as:

Proven negligence + expected type of damage + improbable alternatives → permissible inference of causation.

However, this does not reverse the burden of proof automatically.

UAE relevance

It illustrates how a UAE-linked civil court can approach causation where direct scientific proof is difficult.

7. Case 2 — Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150

The Court explained the four essential elements of negligence under Article 17 of the DIFC Law of Obligations:

duty;

breach;

causation; and

damages.

The judgment specifically stated that Article 10 requires the claimant to establish both the "but for" connection and that the defendant's conduct was a substantial cause of the loss. (DIFC Courts)

The case is also important because the law recognises that:

another event may intervene;

the claimant's own conduct may contribute to the loss;

mitigation may reduce recoverable damages; and

double recovery is prohibited. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

Multi-factor causation therefore does not automatically mean that every contributing party is liable for the entire loss.

The court must analyse the contribution of the different factors.

8. Case 3 — Ludiala v Lucaan Limited [2020] DIFC SCT 139

This case demonstrates the other side of probabilistic causation.

The claimant alleged psychological harm resulting from workplace circumstances.

The medical evidence did not adequately establish that the defendant caused the psychiatric condition. Some evidence attributed the condition to workplace harassment based on the claimant's own account, while other medical material referred generally to stress. (DIFC Courts)

The Court concluded that the evidence did not establish causation on the balance of probabilities.

Importance

A claimant cannot establish causation merely by showing:

"The damage happened after the defendant's conduct."

There must be evidence connecting the defendant's conduct to the damage.

Principle

Temporal sequence ≠ causation.

9. Case 4 — Faizal Babu Moorkath v Expresso Telecom Group Ltd [2023] DIFC CFI 008

The Court stressed that an actionable loss must exist before the question of causation can properly arise.

The judgment stated that without proof of legally recognised loss, injury or damage, there is no actionable tort. (DIFC Courts)

Importance for multi-factor causation

The causation analysis should therefore not become purely theoretical.

A claimant must first identify:

what damage occurred;

why that damage is legally actionable; and

what loss is actually being claimed.

Only then does the court assess which causal factors produced the damage.

10. Case 5 — BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC & Amer Affan [2021] DIFC CFI 106

This is highly useful for complex construction disputes.

The Court considered numerous alleged contractual breaches and held that not all alleged breaches were causative of loss.

The judgment specifically observed that some alleged failures could not logically have caused the claimed losses. It referred to the requirement under UAE law for a causal connection between fault and damage and noted Dubai Commercial Appeal 445/2020/1034 of 23 December 2020 on the absence of causal connection. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

This demonstrates an important principle:

Multiple breaches do not automatically produce multiple compensable losses.

Each alleged wrong should be connected to the particular damage claimed.

For example:

11. Case 6 — IDBI Bank Ltd v Amira C Foods International DMCC [2019] DIFC CA 014

The Court of Appeal dealt extensively with causation in the assessment of damages.

It held that a benefit should only be brought into account to reduce damages where that benefit is causally connected to the breach or results from mitigation of its consequences. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

Causation therefore works in both directions.

The court asks:

Loss side

Did the defendant's breach cause the claimant's loss?

Benefit side

Did the defendant's breach also produce a benefit that should reduce the damages?

This prevents a claimant from receiving compensation unrelated to the defendant's breach.

12. Case 7 — Alawwal Capital JSC v Rasmala Investment Bank Ltd [2025] DIFC CFI 038

The Court discussed Article 10 of the DIFC Law of Obligations in the context of investment representations.

The claimant's case was essentially that, had the alleged representations not been made, it would not have invested and would instead have chosen safer investments.

The Court described Article 10 as requiring the "but for" causal connection. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

Financial-loss causation can involve a counterfactual question:

What would the claimant have done if the defendant had not committed the alleged wrong?

This is particularly important where several market and investment factors may have contributed to a loss.

13. Case 8 — Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QSPC v Emrgent Risk Solutions Ltd [2024] DIFC CFI 053

This insurance/reinsurance dispute involved substantial alleged losses and competing questions concerning coverage, risk allocation and causation.

The judgment contains a specific section dealing with causation and loss, including disputes about the extent and calculation of the insured losses. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

Insurance disputes demonstrate why multi-factor causation is particularly difficult.

A loss may involve:

Underlying event → insured peril → uninsured peril → contractual exclusion → mitigation → resulting financial loss

The court therefore must identify which causal events fall within the relevant legal and contractual responsibility.

14. Case 9 — Punjab National Bank, DIFC Branch v NMC Healthcare LLC & Others [2023] DIFC CFI 079/2020

The Court reiterated the requirements for negligence:

duty of care;

breach;

causation; and

loss.

The defendants had not adequately identified a duty, breach, or conduct that caused the alleged loss. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

In a multi-factor scenario, a claimant cannot simply identify a defendant's participation in the overall chain of events.

The claimant must establish:

This defendant + this legal duty + this breach + this causal contribution + this loss.

15. Probabilistic causation and "balance of probabilities"

In ordinary civil litigation, courts generally decide disputed factual causation using the applicable civil standard of proof.

In the DIFC authorities discussed above, the balance-of-probabilities approach is particularly visible.

This does not mean:

"The court chooses whichever explanation sounds possible."

Rather, the court evaluates:

factual evidence;

expert evidence;

chronology;

scientific evidence;

alternative causes;

contractual allocation of risk;

claimant's own conduct;

intervening events;

statistical evidence; and

the inherent probabilities.

16. Probability is not the same as speculation

This distinction is essential.

Acceptable probabilistic reasoning

Expert evidence shows that Cause A is substantially more consistent with the observed damage than Causes B and C.

Unacceptable speculation

Cause A could have caused the damage, therefore the defendant is liable.

The first is evidence-based inference.

The second is merely possibility.

17. Multiple sufficient causes

Sometimes two independent events could each have produced the damage.

For example:

Factory A releases a harmful substance.

Factory B independently releases the same harmful substance.

Either release could have produced the claimant's loss.

This creates a difficult multiple sufficient causes problem.

The court must determine whether the applicable UAE legal rules permit liability to be imposed despite the difficulty of identifying a single exclusive cause.

The answer depends upon:

the cause of action;

applicable statutory provisions;

evidence;

contribution between wrongdoers;

contractual allocation;

joint/several liability rules; and

the precise nature of the damage.

It should not be assumed that every multi-source injury automatically produces joint liability.

18. Concurrent causes

Concurrent causes occur where several factors operate together.

Example:

Defective construction + inadequate drainage + exceptional rainfall → flooding.

The court might ask:

Was the construction defective?

Was the drainage inadequate?

Was the rainfall foreseeable?

Would flooding have occurred without the defect?

Was the rainfall an intervening event?

Did the claimant contribute to the damage?

What percentage or part of the loss can legally be attributed to each factor?

This is a classic multi-factor causation problem.

19. Pre-existing conditions

Another important category is the pre-existing condition.

Suppose:

Existing structural weakness + defendant's negligent act → building collapse.

The defendant may argue:

"The building was already defective."

The claimant may respond:

"The defendant's conduct materially contributed to the collapse."

The court must therefore distinguish:

pre-existing vulnerability

from

legally relevant causal contribution.

The existence of a pre-existing condition does not automatically eliminate liability.

Conversely, it does not automatically make the defendant responsible for all subsequent damage.

20. Intervening events

A later event can interrupt the causal chain.

For example:

Defendant's negligence → initial damage → claimant's unreasonable intervention → additional damage.

The defendant may be responsible for the initial loss but not necessarily the entire subsequent loss.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly recognises this principle through its intervening-act provision. (DIFC Courts)

This is particularly important in:

medical cases;

construction;

cyber incidents;

financial losses;

environmental damage; and

platform disputes.

21. Claimant's own contribution

A claimant may contribute to the loss.

For example:

Platform security weakness + employee's failure to use two-factor authentication → cyber loss.

Or:

Construction defect + owner's failure to perform maintenance → property damage.

Under the DIFC framework, where loss is partly due to the injured party's own conduct or another event for which that party bears the risk, damages can be reduced according to the contribution of those factors. (DIFC Courts)

This illustrates the distinction between:

Causation

Did the defendant contribute to the damage?

and

Apportionment/reduction

Should the claimant's own contribution reduce the amount recoverable?

These are related but different questions.

22. Mitigation as another causal issue

A claimant has a duty, where applicable, to take reasonable steps to reduce loss.

Example:

Defendant causes initial water damage → claimant unnecessarily leaves the property exposed → damage substantially increases.

The defendant may be responsible for the initial damage but not necessarily for the avoidable additional loss.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly addresses mitigation and prevents a claimant from increasing damages through unnecessary subsequent conduct. (DIFC Courts)

23. Expert evidence

Probabilistic causation frequently requires experts.

Construction expert

May determine:

structural cause;

defective design;

workmanship;

weather impact;

maintenance contribution.

Medical expert

May determine:

pre-existing condition;

treatment-related injury;

alternative causes;

probability of causation.

Financial expert

May determine:

market effects;

counterfactual investment;

lost profits;

alternative explanations.

Cyber expert

May determine:

attack vector;

security vulnerabilities;

system failure;

data loss;

contribution of different security failures.

But expert evidence does not automatically decide the legal question.

Expert evidence informs causation; the court determines legal causation.

24. Statistical evidence

Probabilistic causation may involve statistical evidence.

For example:

A particular system failure occurs in 2% of transactions normally but 60% after a specific software change.

This may be highly relevant.

But statistical correlation is not necessarily sufficient by itself.

The court must consider:

sample size;

methodology;

confounding factors;

data quality;

alternative explanations;

relevance of the population;

temporal relationship; and

reliability of the expert methodology.

Thus:

Correlation is evidence of causation, not automatically proof of causation.

25. AI and algorithmic causation

This concept has increasing relevance to UAE civil law.

Imagine:

AI recommendation system → incorrect recommendation → customer decision → financial loss

There may be several causal factors:

defective algorithm;

inaccurate training data;

user reliance;

platform interface;

market conditions;

third-party information.

The claimant therefore cannot simply say:

"The AI made a wrong prediction."

The court would need to determine:

who controlled the system;

whether there was a legal duty;

whether the system breached that duty;

whether the error caused the loss;

whether the user independently contributed;

whether the loss was foreseeable;

whether another event intervened.

26. Platform economy example

Suppose an online marketplace's algorithm wrongly suspends a seller.

The seller loses AED 500,000.

But during the same period:

market demand declined by 20%;

the seller lost two major customers;

a competitor entered the market;

the seller's own inventory was defective.

The seller cannot automatically attribute AED 500,000 to the platform.

A court might have to distinguish:

Platform-caused loss

from

Market-caused loss

from

Claimant-caused loss

from

Independent third-party loss.

This is the essence of probabilistic causation in modern civil litigation.

27. A practical causation matrix

28. Probabilistic causation versus apportionment

These concepts should not be confused.

Causation

Did the defendant cause the loss?

Apportionment

If several parties caused the loss, how should responsibility be allocated?

Quantification

How much money represents the legally recoverable loss?

For example:

A + B + C → Damage of AED 1 million

The court may need to answer three separate questions:

Did A legally cause part of the damage?

Did B and C also contribute?

What amount is recoverable from the defendant before applying any relevant reduction or allocation rules?

29. The importance of BAM Higgs

BAM Higgs is especially useful because it demonstrates that courts should not treat a long list of alleged breaches as automatically producing a corresponding list of losses.

The Court emphasised that each claimed loss must be causally connected to the relevant wrong. (DIFC Courts)

Therefore:

Multiplicity of breaches does not prove multiplicity of causation.

30. The importance of Amira C Foods

Amira C Foods provides the complementary principle.

Where direct proof of the precise mechanism is unavailable, a court may sometimes infer causation from:

proven negligence;

the nature of the resulting damage;

ordinary probabilities; and

rejection of alternative explanations.

The Court expressly distinguished this from reversing the burden of proof. (DIFC Courts)

Thus:

Causation can sometimes be inferred, but it cannot simply be presumed.

31. Important distinction between onshore UAE and DIFC

This topic requires particular care.

Onshore UAE

The current general civil-law framework is the 2025 Civil Transactions Law, effective 1 June 2026.

DIFC

The DIFC has its own common-law-influenced statutory framework, including the DIFC Law of Obligations and Damages Law.

Therefore, cases such as:

Haya Spa;

Ludiala;

Amira C Foods;

BAM Higgs; and

IDBI v Amira

are DIFC authorities, not automatically binding precedents for mainland UAE courts.

They are nevertheless valuable for understanding how courts within the UAE legal environment reason about complex causation.

32. Modern UAE approach to probabilistic causation

A useful conceptual framework is:

Step 1 — Identify the legal duty

What obligation allegedly existed?

Step 2 — Identify the wrongful conduct

What precisely did the defendant do or omit?

Step 3 — Identify the damage

What actual legally recognised loss occurred?

Step 4 — Identify possible causes

List every plausible causal factor.

Step 5 — Test counterfactual causation

Would the damage probably have occurred without the defendant's conduct?

Step 6 — Test substantial contribution

Was the defendant's conduct sufficiently connected to the loss?

Step 7 — Examine alternatives

Were other explanations more probable?

Step 8 — Examine intervening events

Did another event break the chain?

Step 9 — Examine claimant contribution

Did the claimant contribute to the loss?

Step 10 — Quantify

What portion of the damage is legally recoverable?

33. Key legal principles

Principle 1

Possibility is not enough.

Principle 2

Causation can sometimes be established through reasonable inference.

Principle 3

Alternative causes must be considered.

Principle 4

A defendant need not necessarily be the only cause.

Principle 5

Every claimed loss must be causally connected to the relevant wrong.

Principle 6

Claimant contribution can affect recovery.

Principle 7

Intervening events can break or modify the causal chain.

Principle 8

Expert evidence can assist but does not replace judicial determination.

Principle 9

Quantification is distinct from establishing causation.

Principle 10

Statistical probability does not automatically establish legal causation.

34. Examination-style answer

If asked in an examination:

"Explain probabilistic causation in multi-factor damage scenarios under UAE civil law."

A concise answer can be structured as follows:

Probabilistic causation arises where damage results from several possible or concurrent factors and the claimant cannot establish the causal mechanism with absolute certainty. UAE civil liability nevertheless requires a legally sufficient connection between the defendant's wrongful conduct and the damage. DIFC authorities provide useful illustrations: Haya Spa applies a but-for/substantial-cause approach; Amira C Foods recognises that causation may sometimes be inferred from the nature of the damage and the probabilities after considering alternative explanations; Ludiala shows that mere temporal association is insufficient; BAM Higgs requires each claimed loss to be causally connected to the relevant breach; and IDBI v Amira demonstrates that causal connection also matters when accounting for benefits and mitigation. The court must therefore distinguish causation, contribution, intervening events, mitigation and quantification.

35. Conclusion

Probabilistic causation in UAE civil law is best understood as an evidence-based method of dealing with damage produced by multiple possible or contributing causes.

The central principle is not mathematical certainty. It is legally sufficient causal proof.

The courts can consider:

Evidence + probability + expert analysis + alternative causes + counterfactual reasoning + intervening events + claimant contribution.

The most important distinction is:

A defendant does not necessarily have to be the sole cause of damage, but the claimant must establish a legally sufficient causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the loss claimed.

One-Minute Revision

Probabilistic causation = multiple possible/concurrent causes + difficult causal proof.

Remember:

Possibility ≠ proof

Correlation ≠ automatic causation

Temporal sequence ≠ causation

Alternative causes must be examined

Expert evidence may establish probability

Intervening events may break causation

Claimant's conduct may reduce recovery

Each head of loss requires causal connection

Causation ≠ apportionment ≠ quantification

Amira C Foods → reasonable inference of causation can be possible.

Haya Spa → but-for + substantial cause.

Ludiala → inadequate evidence of causation defeats claim.

BAM Higgs → each loss must be connected to the relevant wrong.

IDBI v Amira → benefits must also be causally connected before reducing damages.

Alawwal Capital → counterfactual "what would have happened?" analysis.

Faizal Babu Moorkath → actionable damage must first be established.

Qatar General Insurance → complex insurance/reinsurance losses require careful causation analysis.

Core formula:

Duty → Breach → Damage → Possible Causes → Probability → Causal Connection → Intervening Events → Contribution → Quantification → Remedy.