Civil Law and UAE Proof of Causation in Multi-Factor Harm

1. Introduction

Causation is the legal connection between a wrongful act or breach of obligation and the harm suffered by the claimant.

In a simple case, causation may appear straightforward:

Defendant's negligent act → injury → loss.

But multi-factor harm is more complicated because the injury may result from several contributing causes.

For example:

defective product + pre-existing condition + negligent medical treatment + environmental exposure → final injury.

The claimant therefore has to establish not merely that the defendant acted wrongfully, but that the defendant's conduct legally contributed to the actionable harm.

Under the current UAE Civil Transactions Law, which came into force on 1 June 2026, Article 253 expressly addresses situations where multiple persons are responsible for the same harm. It provides for liability according to the respective share in the harm, while allowing the court, in appropriate circumstances, to impose equal or joint and several liability. It also permits reduction or denial of compensation where the injured person contributed to or aggravated the harm. Article 255 provides that compensation is assessed according to the loss and lost profit where they are a natural consequence of the harmful act.

2. Meaning of Multi-Factor Harm

Multi-factor harm occurs where two or more factors contribute to the claimant's injury or economic loss.

The factors may include:

1. acts of several defendants;
2. claimant's own conduct;
3. pre-existing physical conditions;
4. subsequent medical treatment;
5. environmental conditions;
6. contractual breaches;
7. independent third-party conduct;
8. natural events;
9. technological or mechanical failures;
10. several successive wrongful acts.

Example

A construction worker suffers respiratory illness after:

• exposure to construction dust;
• inadequate protective equipment supplied by Employer A;
• chemical exposure caused by Contractor B;
• pre-existing asthma;
• later medical complications.

The court must determine:

Which causes legally contributed to the final harm?

3. Causation as an Element of Civil Liability

Traditionally, UAE civil liability is analysed through three basic elements:

1. Wrongful act or breach

There must be conduct capable of producing liability.

2. Damage

The claimant must establish legally recognised harm.

3. Causal connection

The claimant must establish the connection between the wrongful conduct and the damage.

The DIFC courts, applying UAE-law principles in relevant cases, have also recognised this three-element structure. In BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC, the Court cited Dubai Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019 for the proposition that liability requires breach, damage and causal connection, and that breach alone is insufficient.

Therefore:

Wrongdoing without causation does not automatically produce compensation.

4. Burden of Proving Causation

Generally, the claimant must establish the factual basis of the alleged causal relationship.

The claimant should demonstrate, with appropriate evidence, that:

the defendant's conduct materially contributed to the loss for which compensation is claimed.

This becomes particularly important where several possible causes exist.

For example, simply showing:

“I became ill after working for the defendant”

may not be sufficient.

Medical evidence may need to establish:

“The defendant's exposure materially caused or contributed to the illness.”

The DIFC decision in Ludiala v Lucaan Ltd [2020] DIFC SCT 139 provides a useful illustration. The Court found that medical notes did not adequately establish that the defendant caused the claimant's psychological harm. The claimant's own assertion that the illness was work-related was insufficient to prove causation.

5. But-For Causation

A basic causation inquiry asks:

But for the defendant's conduct, would the claimant have suffered the relevant loss?

This is commonly called the but-for test.

For example:

Without Defendant A's negligent installation:

• the machine would not have malfunctioned;
• the fire would not have occurred;
• the claimant would not have suffered the particular damage.

However, the but-for test becomes difficult when there are multiple independently sufficient causes.

6. Substantial Contribution

Multi-factor cases often require a further inquiry:

Did the defendant's conduct make a legally significant contribution to the damage?

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly provides that a claimant must show both that the defendant's conduct was a but-for cause and a substantial cause of the loss. Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150 discussed these principles in detail.

This is particularly useful for analysing multi-factor harm.

7. Multiple Defendants

The current Civil Transactions Law specifically addresses multiple persons responsible for harm.

Article 253

Where several persons are responsible:

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

The same provision also recognises contributory conduct by the injured person.

Therefore, UAE law does not require the court to pretend that every defendant contributed exactly 50%.

The court can examine:

• nature of each person's conduct;
• seriousness of each contribution;
• causal significance;
• degree of fault;
• contribution to the ultimate harm.

8. Claimant's Own Contribution

Multi-factor harm can also involve the claimant.

Suppose:

Defendant negligently creates a dangerous condition.

The claimant then:

ignores an obvious warning and substantially increases the resulting injury.

The claimant's conduct may affect the compensation.

Article 253(2) of the current Civil Transactions Law provides that compensation may be reduced or not awarded where the injured party contributed to causing or aggravating the harm.

This reflects the principle:

A claimant should not necessarily recover the entire loss where the claimant's own conduct materially contributed to it.

9. Pre-Existing Conditions

A pre-existing medical or physical condition does not automatically break causation.

The important question is:

Did the defendant's conduct cause, aggravate, accelerate or materially contribute to the resulting harm?

For example:

Person A has a weak knee.

Defendant negligently causes a collision.

The collision causes the pre-existing condition to deteriorate severely.

The court may need to distinguish between:

• the condition that existed before the accident; and
• the additional harm caused by the defendant.

The defendant should not automatically become liable for every aspect of the claimant's pre-existing condition merely because the defendant caused an aggravation.

10. Concurrent Causes

Concurrent causes exist where several causes operate together to produce one injury.

Example:

Defective electrical wiring + overloaded equipment + inadequate fire protection → fire.

The question becomes whether the defendant's defective wiring was a legally significant cause of the fire.

The fact that another factor also contributed does not automatically eliminate liability.

11. Successive Causes

Sometimes causes occur sequentially.

Example:

Negligent construction → structural defect → water penetration → electrical failure → fire → business interruption.

Each event may have a relationship with the next.

The court must determine:

• whether the original wrong remained an operative cause;
• whether a later event superseded it;
• whether the later event was foreseeable;
• whether the later event was independent;
• whether the original defendant should remain responsible.

12. Intervening Cause

An intervening cause is a later event that potentially breaks the causal connection between the original wrongful conduct and the final damage.

Under Article 11 of the DIFC Law of Obligations, once the defendant's conduct has caused loss, the defendant is not responsible for loss to the extent that a supervening event means that the defendant's conduct is no longer an operative cause. Haya Spa applied this framework when considering whether later events had severed causation.

The concept is useful in UAE multi-factor analysis even though the DIFC statutory framework is distinct from mainland UAE law.

13. Natural Consequence of the Wrong

Article 255 of the current Civil Transactions Law provides that compensation is assessed according to the loss suffered and lost profit, provided that the loss is a natural consequence of the harmful act.

This is important because causation and damages are closely connected.

The court must ask:

1. Did the defendant cause the loss?
2. Is the claimed loss a natural consequence?
3. How much of the loss is legally attributable to the defendant?

14. Causation and Foreseeability

Foreseeability can become relevant when deciding the scope of recoverable loss.

For example:

A contractor negligently damages a water pipe.

Direct consequence

Water damages the building.

More remote consequence

The owner loses rental income.

Highly unusual consequence

A distant business partner loses an unrelated investment opportunity.

The court must distinguish the loss that naturally flows from the harmful act from loss that is too remote or insufficiently connected.

15. Causation and Expert Evidence

Multi-factor causation often involves technical questions.

Examples:

• medical causation;
• construction defects;
• engineering failures;
• environmental contamination;
• accounting losses;
• financial-market losses;
• software failures;
• product defects.

Expert evidence may therefore be critical.

But:

An expert does not decide legal causation.

The expert provides technical evidence.

The court ultimately decides whether the legally required causal connection exists.

16. Case Law

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

[2016] DIFC SCT 150

This is one of the most useful cases for multi-factor causation.

The defendants argued that subsequent events had broken the causal connection between their conduct and the claimant's losses.

The Court examined:

• but-for causation;
• substantial causation;
• intervening events;
• whether later events made the original conduct cease to be an operative cause. 

Principle

A later event does not automatically eliminate causation. The court must determine whether it actually displaced the defendant's conduct as an operative cause.

Case 2 — Ludiala v Lucaan Limited

[2020] DIFC SCT 139

The claimant alleged psychological harm caused by workplace conduct.

The Court considered medical evidence and found that the evidence did not adequately establish that the defendant caused the claimed psychiatric harm.

The claimant's own assertion that the condition was work-related was not enough.

Principle

Allegation of causation is not proof of causation.

In multi-factor medical cases, objective evidence connecting the defendant's conduct with the injury is particularly important.

Case 3 — BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC

[2021] DIFC CFI 106

The dispute involved alleged contractual breaches and substantial financial losses.

The Court emphasised that not every breach necessarily caused every item of loss claimed.

It rejected attempts to treat a large aggregate amount as automatically caused by several alleged breaches. The claimant had to establish the causal connection between individual breaches and particular losses.

The Court also referred to Dubai Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019, which confirmed that breach, damage and causal connection must coexist.

Principle

Each head of claimed loss requires an adequate causal foundation.

A claimant cannot simply aggregate all losses and attribute them to every alleged breach.

Case 4 — Dubai Commercial Appeal No. 445/2020/1034

23 December 2020

This authority was discussed in BAM Higgs & Hill.

The cited reasoning stated that contractual or tortious liability requires:

• fault;
• damage; and
• causal connection.

It also identified potential causes capable of breaking or affecting causation, including:

• force majeure;
• claimant's fault;
• third-party conduct.

Principle

Causation is an independent component of civil liability and must connect the established fault to the claimed damage.

Case 5 — Dubai Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019

This authority was cited by the DIFC Court in BAM Higgs & Hill.

The Court referred to the principle that liability, whether contractual or tortious, does not arise merely because a breach occurred. Breach, damage and causal connection must coexist.

Principle

A defendant's breach alone is insufficient.

The claimant must prove the damage and its causal relationship with the breach.

Case 6 — Faizal Babu Moorkath v Expresso Telecom Group Ltd

[2023] DIFC CFI 008

The Court dealt with an alleged loss arising from conduct in a commercial context.

It emphasised that actionable loss must first be established before the court moves to questions of causation.

The Court explained that a wrong without legally recognised loss does not automatically produce a tort claim.

Principle

The causation inquiry cannot compensate for the absence of actionable damage.

The claimant must first establish that there is legally recognisable loss.

Case 7 — IDBI Bank Ltd v Amira C Foods International DMCC

[2019] DIFC CA 014

The Court of Appeal considered whether benefits obtained after a breach should reduce damages.

It emphasised that the relevant benefit must be causally connected with the breach or with mitigation of the consequences of the breach.

A mere chronological connection is insufficient.

In other words:

“It happened after the breach”

does not mean:

“It was caused by the breach.”

Principle

Causation requires more than temporal sequence.

This is especially important in complex commercial loss calculations.

Case 8 — Shihab Khalil v Shuaa Capital PSC

[2009] DIFC CFI 017

The Court explained that in a negligence claim the claimant must establish both:

1. lack of reasonable care; and
2. that the lack of care caused the claimant's loss.

The causal element is therefore an essential component of the cause of action.

Principle

A negligent act without demonstrated consequential loss does not complete the negligence claim.

17. Case-Law Summary

Note: The DIFC cases above arise under the DIFC legal framework and are not automatically binding authorities for mainland UAE courts. The Dubai Cassation authorities are mainland UAE authorities cited by the DIFC Court and are therefore particularly useful for understanding the broader UAE civil-law principle.

18. Multi-Factor Causation Model

A practical UAE analysis can be structured as follows:

Step 1 — Identify the wrongful conduct

What exactly did Defendant A do or fail to do?

Step 2 — Identify the damage

What specific injury or economic loss occurred?

Step 3 — Identify all possible causes

List:

• Defendant A;
• Defendant B;
• claimant;
• third parties;
• natural events;
• pre-existing conditions;
• subsequent events.

Step 4 — Apply factual causation

Ask:

Would the damage have occurred without Defendant A's conduct?

Step 5 — Examine substantial contribution

Did Defendant A's conduct make a legally significant contribution?

Step 6 — Examine intervening events

Did a later event supersede the original conduct?

Step 7 — Allocate responsibility

If several persons caused the harm, determine their respective contributions.

Step 8 — Assess the loss

Determine which losses are natural consequences of the harmful conduct.

19. Hypothetical Example — Medical Injury

Assume:

• Doctor A makes a negligent diagnostic error.
• Patient already has a serious medical condition.
• Doctor B later makes another error.
• Patient delays returning to hospital.
• The patient's condition becomes significantly worse.

There are potentially four causal factors:

1. pre-existing illness;
2. Doctor A's negligence;
3. Doctor B's negligence;
4. patient's delay.

The court should not simply ask:

“Who caused the injury?”

Instead it may need to determine:

• what harm existed before Doctor A;
• what additional harm resulted from Doctor A;
• whether Doctor B caused further harm;
• whether the patient's conduct contributed;
• whether one event superseded another;
• how the total damage should be allocated.

20. Hypothetical Example — Construction

Suppose a building develops structural cracks because of:

• defective engineering;
• poor materials;
• negligent construction;
• unusually heavy rainfall;
• owner's failure to maintain drainage.

The causal analysis should identify the contribution of each factor.

The contractor cannot necessarily escape liability merely because rainfall contributed.

Conversely, the contractor should not automatically be liable for every consequence if independent causes caused part of the damage.

21. Hypothetical Example — Product Liability

A consumer's machine catches fire because:

• manufacturer used defective wiring;
• retailer stored the product improperly;
• consumer overloaded it;
• electrical voltage fluctuated unusually.

The court may have to determine:

Which factors caused the fire and to what extent?

Article 253's multiple-responsibility principle is particularly relevant to the allocation of responsibility where multiple persons are legally responsible for the same harm.

22. Causation and Contributory Conduct

The current Civil Transactions Law expressly recognises that the claimant may contribute to the harm.

For example:

Defendant contributes 70% of the causal risk, while claimant's conduct contributes to the remaining harm.

The court can consider the claimant's contribution when assessing compensation. Article 253(2) expressly allows reduction or denial of compensation where the injured party contributed to causing or aggravating the harm.

23. Causation and Joint Responsibility

Where several defendants contribute to one indivisible injury, the court may face difficulty assigning exact percentages.

Article 253 gives the court flexibility by allowing:

• proportional liability;
• equal liability;
• joint and several liability where appropriate. 

This is particularly important for:

• construction accidents;
• environmental contamination;
• industrial accidents;
• defective products;
• medical negligence involving multiple professionals;
• multi-party commercial losses.

24. Evidence Used to Prove Causation

Evidence can include:

Documentary evidence

• contracts;
• invoices;
• medical records;
• technical reports;
• maintenance records;
• inspection reports.

Expert evidence

• medical experts;
• engineers;
• accountants;
• IT experts;
• forensic specialists.

Electronic evidence

• emails;
• system logs;
• CCTV;
• GPS records;
• blockchain records;
• database records.

Witness evidence

Witnesses may establish:

• sequence of events;
• warnings;
• communications;
• operational failures.

Circumstantial evidence

A causal connection can sometimes be established through the totality of circumstances rather than one direct piece of evidence.

25. Difference Between Cause and Condition

A useful analytical distinction is:

Condition

Something that forms part of the background circumstances.

Cause

A factor that materially contributes to the occurrence of the legally relevant harm.

For example:

A claimant's pre-existing vulnerability may be a condition, while negligent exposure may be the causal factor that activates or aggravates the injury.

The distinction is fact-sensitive and normally requires evidence.

26. Causation in Contract and Tort

Tort

The focus is generally:

Did the wrongful act cause the claimant's damage?

Contract

The focus is:

Did the breach cause the loss for which contractual damages are claimed?

In both areas, causation is essential.

The BAM Higgs & Hill decision is useful because it emphasised that alleged breaches must actually be connected to the particular losses claimed.

27. Causation vs Remoteness

These should not be confused.

Causation

Did the defendant's conduct cause the loss?

Remoteness

Even if it caused the loss, is that loss legally recoverable?

Quantum

If recoverable, how much compensation should be awarded?

Therefore:

Cause → Legal recoverability → Amount

The current Civil Transactions Law's requirement that compensation relate to loss that is a natural consequence of the harmful act illustrates the close relationship between causation and the scope of recoverable damages.

28. Causation and Loss of Opportunity

Multi-factor harm may also involve a lost opportunity.

For example:

A professional error reduces a person's chance of obtaining a business opportunity.

The court may need to determine:

• whether the opportunity actually existed;
• whether the defendant's conduct caused its loss;
• how probable the opportunity was;
• what portion of the loss can reasonably be attributed to the defendant.

The DIFC Law of Obligations expressly recognises compensation for loss of opportunity in proportion to the probability of its occurrence. Haya Spa discusses this framework.

29. Key Principles for UAE Law

Principle 1

Causation is an essential element of civil liability.

Principle 2

Breach alone does not establish compensation.

Principle 3

The claimant must establish the causal connection.

Principle 4

Several causes may coexist.

Principle 5

A later event may break causation if it displaces the original cause.

Principle 6

The claimant's own contribution may reduce compensation.

Principle 7

Each head of claimed loss needs an adequate causal foundation.

Principle 8

Temporal sequence is not the same as causation.

Principle 9

Expert evidence can be critical in technical multi-factor cases.

Principle 10

Multiple defendants may bear proportionate, equal or joint and several responsibility under Article 253, depending on the circumstances.

30. Exam Formula

A simple formula for examination purposes is:

Wrongful Act → Damage → Factual Causation → Substantial Contribution → Intervening Cause → Allocation of Responsibility → Natural Consequence → Compensation

For multi-factor cases:

Causation = Defendant's Contribution + Other Causes + Claimant's Contribution + Intervening Events + Evidence

31. Short Exam Answer

Proof of causation in multi-factor harm under UAE civil law concerns establishing the legal connection between a defendant's wrongful conduct and damage where several factors may have contributed to the injury. Causation is an essential element of civil liability together with the wrongful act and damage. UAE jurisprudence requires the claimant to establish that the defendant's conduct caused the relevant loss. Dubai Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019, as cited in BAM Higgs & Hill v Affan, confirms that breach, damage and causal connection must coexist.

The current Civil Transactions Law is particularly important because Article 253 expressly regulates cases involving multiple persons responsible for harm and allows liability to be apportioned or, where appropriate, imposed equally or jointly and severally. It also permits reduction or denial of compensation where the injured party contributed to causing or aggravating the harm. Article 255 further requires compensation to relate to loss that is a natural consequence of the harmful act.

The cases of Haya Spa, Ludiala, BAM Higgs & Hill, Faizal Babu Moorkath, IDBI Bank v Amira C Foods, and Shihab Khalil demonstrate important principles concerning substantial causation, intervening events, proof of medical causation, actionable loss, causal connection to individual heads of damage and the distinction between temporal sequence and legal causation.

Conclusion

UAE civil law does not require multi-factor harm to be reduced to a simplistic “one defendant, one cause” model. The modern statutory framework expressly recognises situations in which several persons contribute to the same harm.

The court's task is to identify:

what happened → what caused it → how each factor contributed → whether any later event interrupted causation → whether the claimant contributed → what loss is legally attributable to each responsible person.

The most important current statutory development is Article 253 of the 2025 Civil Transactions Law, which expressly provides a framework for multiple persons responsible for harm and claimant contribution.

Thus, the central principle is:

In multi-factor harm, liability depends not merely on proving that the defendant acted wrongfully, but on proving the legally significant causal contribution of that conduct to the particular damage claimed.