Civil Law and UAE: Proportionality Principle in Civil Remedies

1. Meaning of the Proportionality Principle

The proportionality principle in civil remedies means that the remedy granted by a court should bear a reasonable relationship to:

the seriousness of the breach;

the actual loss suffered;

the contractual obligation violated;

the degree of responsibility of the defendant;

the purpose of the remedy;

the conduct of both parties; and

the practical consequences of the remedy.

In simple words:

A civil remedy should correct the legal wrong without going materially beyond what is necessary to provide appropriate legal relief.

Proportionality is particularly important when a court considers:

damages;

agreed compensation or contractual penalties;

specific performance;

injunctions;

restitution;

termination consequences;

costs;

interest;

freezing orders; and

other discretionary remedies.

A crucial UAE distinction is necessary: there is not necessarily one single general statutory article called the “proportionality principle in civil remedies.” Rather, proportionality emerges from the rules governing compensation, causation, certainty of loss, contractual adjustment, judicial discretion, good faith and the nature of particular remedies.

2. Current UAE Civil-Law Position

The current UAE Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, which came into force on 1 June 2026 and replaced the former Federal Law No. 5 of 1985.

For current disputes, the 2025 Civil Transactions Law should therefore be the starting point. Older UAE judgments based on the 1985 Civil Transactions Law remain historically useful but must be applied with care where statutory wording has changed.

The proportionality concept can be understood through several connected principles:

A. Compensation should correspond to legally recognised loss

A claimant is generally not entitled simply to obtain a windfall because a breach occurred.

The court examines:

Breach → Loss → Causation → Proof → Appropriate remedy

B. Contractual compensation may be judicially controlled

Where parties agree beforehand on compensation, the agreed amount is important, but civil law does not necessarily treat the contractual figure as immune from judicial scrutiny.

The modern UAE approach therefore recognises both:

contractual autonomy; and

judicial control against excessive compensation.

C. Causation limits recovery

Even where breach is established, the claimant must establish a sufficient causal relationship between the breach and the claimed loss.

D. Double recovery is generally impermissible

A claimant should not obtain two monetary remedies that compensate the same loss twice.

E. Injunctions must be justified by the harm they prevent

An injunction should not be broader than reasonably necessary to protect the relevant legal interest.

F. Costs are also subject to proportionality in applicable procedural systems

This is particularly developed in the DIFC Courts, where the Rules of the DIFC Courts expressly require proportionality in assessment of costs on the standard basis. (DIFC Courts)

3. Main Forms of Proportionality in Civil Remedies

4. Proportionality and Damages

The basic purpose of civil damages is normally compensation rather than punishment.

Suppose:

A contractor causes AED 100,000 of proven damage.

The claimant demands AED 2 million without evidence of additional loss.

The court may examine whether the additional amount has a legal and evidential basis.

This produces an important principle:

The existence of a legal wrong does not automatically determine the amount of the remedy.

The claimant must connect the remedy to the legally recoverable consequences of the wrong.

5. Proportionality and Agreed Compensation

This is one of the clearest applications of proportionality.

Parties may agree in advance that a particular amount will be payable upon breach. Such clauses provide commercial certainty.

However, an agreed amount may be scrutinised where the applicable law permits judicial adjustment.

The question becomes:

Is the agreed amount reasonably related to the loss that could arise from the breach, or has it become manifestly excessive?

This concept is particularly explicit in DIFC contract law.

6. Case Law

Case 1: Panther Real Estate Development LLC v Modern Executive Systems Contracting LLC [2022] DIFC CA 016

This is an important UAE-region authority concerning proportionality of agreed compensation.

The dispute arose from a construction contract involving a residential tower. The contract contained delay-related financial consequences.

The DIFC Court of Appeal considered the statutory framework concerning agreed sums payable for non-performance and the court's power to reduce an amount where it is manifestly disproportionate to the loss that could result from the non-performance. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

The contractual label is not necessarily decisive.

The court examines the relationship between:

contractual amount;

anticipated loss; and

circumstances of the breach.

Importance

The case illustrates that contractual freedom does not necessarily mean that an excessive remedy is automatically enforceable without judicial scrutiny.

Proportionality principle:
Contractual amount ↔ anticipated loss.

7. Case 2: Siraj Power Machinery and Equipment Leasing LLC v Al Tajir Glass Industries LLC [2024] DIFC CFI 070

This case provides an especially clear discussion of proportionality.

The Court considered an agreed contractual sum and the statutory power to reduce it where it was manifestly disproportionate to the loss that could result from non-performance. (DIFC Courts)

The Court emphasised that the fundamental question was whether the amount was manifestly disproportionate to the anticipated loss.

Importantly, the Court rejected the idea that contractual remedies necessarily have to be symmetrical between the parties.

Principle

Proportionality does not necessarily mean:

“Both parties must have exactly equal remedies.”

Instead, the relevant question is whether the particular agreed remedy bears a legally acceptable relationship to the anticipated loss.

Significance

This is particularly important in commercial contracts, where parties frequently negotiate different consequences for different types of default.

8. Case 3: Amit Dattani & Others v DAMAC Park Towers [2012] DIFC CFI 034

This dispute concerned property sale agreements and contractual termination/compensation provisions.

The purchasers sought repayment and additional damages after termination of the agreements.

The DIFC Court ultimately ordered repayment of the sums paid under the relevant agreements but did not make an additional order for damages under the applicable enhanced-damages provision. (DIFC Courts)

The case demonstrates an important distinction:

Restitution ≠ automatic additional compensation.

A party obtaining repayment of money already paid does not automatically establish entitlement to every additional monetary remedy claimed.

Principle

The court must identify the particular legal basis for each remedy and determine whether additional relief is justified.

9. Case 4: Phoebe v Peter [2026] DIFC SCT 039

This is a particularly useful recent authority.

The dispute concerned incomplete/defective works and a claim for substantial rectification-related damages.

The defendant argued, among other matters, that the damages claimed were disproportionate to the proven issues.

The Court's analysis focused on the evidence, substantial completion, lack of independent technical evidence, the distinction between rectification and upgrades/new works, and the proof of the claimed damages. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A claimant cannot automatically convert every expenditure connected with a defective project into recoverable damages.

There must be a reasonable connection between:

defect → necessary rectification → reasonable cost → recoverable damage.

Importance

This is a practical example of proportionality in damages assessment.

10. Case 5: LXT Real Estate Broker LLC v SIR Real Estate LLC [2023] DIFC CFI 050

This case concerned injunctions and the relationship between injunctive relief and damages.

The DIFC Court considered the principles applicable to interim injunctions, including the requirement that the court consider whether the relief is appropriate in the circumstances and the balance of convenience. (DIFC Courts)

The case also discussed the relationship between injunctions, specific performance and damages.

Principle

An injunction is not simply another form of damages.

It is a discretionary remedy designed to protect a legal interest where monetary compensation may not adequately address the problem.

Therefore:

The scope of an injunction should be connected to the legal interest requiring protection.

11. Case 6: Ohtli v Onora [2025] DIFC ARB 034

This is a useful modern example of proportionality in interim relief.

The dispute involved an anti-suit injunction.

The Court explained that such relief is discretionary and must respond to a real and present need. When the underlying proceedings had ceased, the Court found that continuation of the injunction would no longer serve a useful or proportionate purpose and discharged it. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A remedy that was justified at one stage may cease to be justified later.

Therefore:

Remedy must be continuously connected to the current risk.

This is an important aspect of proportionality.

12. Case 7: Golden Sands Hotel LLC v Brighton Rock Restaurant LLC [2025] DIFC CFI 106

This case illustrates proportionality in injunctive relief through the balance of convenience.

The Court considered whether granting relief would preserve the contractual/proprietary position and whether refusing relief would permit continuing conduct causing potentially unrecoverable losses. It also considered whether the injunction could be structured to permit an orderly handover. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A court can tailor a remedy rather than simply choosing between:

complete relief; or

no relief.

This is an important practical expression of proportionality.

Example

Instead of imposing an unnecessarily broad prohibition, the court may design an order that:

protects the claimant;

reduces unnecessary prejudice to the defendant; and

preserves the status quo.

13. Case 8: Melody & Molly v Melance [2020] DIFC CA 010

This case is particularly significant for costs proportionality.

The DIFC Court of Appeal discussed the requirement that costs on the standard basis be:

proportionately and reasonably incurred; and

proportionate and reasonable in amount.

The relevant considerations include:

amount of money involved;

importance of the case;

complexity;

skill and responsibility;

time spent; and

circumstances in which work was performed. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A successful party does not automatically recover every legal expense incurred.

The recoverable costs must satisfy the applicable proportionality and reasonableness requirements.

14. Case 9: CFI 012/2009 — Proportionality of Freezing Relief

An older DIFC decision provides a particularly useful example of proportionality in freezing orders.

The Court considered whether the freezing order should cover the full amount claimed or only an amount reasonably connected to the claimant's actual exposure.

The Court indicated that, even if a freezing order were justified, it would examine the actual value of the property and the necessity of freezing the particular assets rather than simply freezing everything requested. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A protective remedy should not automatically exceed the amount reasonably required to protect the claim.

Thus:

Claim amount ≠ automatic freezing amount.

15. Case 10: Quortia Ltd v Frank Irrling [2025–2026] DIFC CFI 117

This recent case demonstrates that proportionality can also operate through assessment of litigation costs.

The Court considered challenges to claimed legal costs and made deductions where particular work was not sufficiently justified. It also distinguished standard-basis proportionality from indemnity-basis costs assessment. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Proportionality is not an automatic percentage reduction.

The court examines the applicable costs regime and the nature of the work actually undertaken.

16. Proportionality in Injunctions

An injunction can have a very significant practical effect.

For example:

A company claims that a former business partner is using confidential information.

Possible orders include:

prohibiting all business activity;

prohibiting only use of confidential information;

requiring preservation of information;

requiring delivery or deletion of specified materials;

requiring limited disclosure.

A proportionate remedy would normally focus on the legal wrong actually established or reasonably feared.

Formula

Risk → Necessity → Scope → Duration → Safeguards → Review

The broader the injunction, the stronger the justification normally required.

17. Proportionality in Specific Performance

Specific performance requires a defendant to perform the contractual obligation itself rather than merely paying damages.

It can therefore be more intrusive than a monetary award.

The court may consider:

whether damages provide an adequate remedy;

whether performance is practically possible;

whether supervision would be required;

whether the order would impose disproportionate hardship;

whether the claimant has itself performed its obligations.

Thus:

Specific performance is not necessarily automatic merely because breach is proved.

18. Proportionality and Restitution

Restitution attempts to reverse an unjust transfer or restore the relevant parties to an appropriate position.

Example:

A buyer pays AED 500,000 for property.

The contract is lawfully terminated.

If AED 500,000 is recoverable, the claimant should ordinarily not use the termination to obtain:

AED 500,000 repayment;

another AED 500,000 under a second head representing the same payment; and

an additional identical award disguised as damages.

This connects proportionality with the prohibition against double recovery.

19. Proportionality and Causation

A proportional remedy requires a causal relationship.

The court can ask:

Did the defendant breach?

What damage actually occurred?

Was the damage caused by the breach?

Could another event have caused it?

Was the claimed amount actually necessary?

Is the claimant attempting to recover losses unrelated to the breach?

Therefore:

No causation → no proportionate compensation for that loss.

20. Proportionality and Mitigation

The claimant's own conduct can affect the amount recoverable.

For example, suppose a supplier delivers defective machinery.

The purchaser:

discovers the defect;

does nothing for six months;

allows the damage to increase;

then claims the entire increased loss from the supplier.

The court may examine whether reasonable steps could have reduced the loss.

Proportionality therefore interacts with:

mitigation;

contributory conduct;

causation; and

reasonable remedial expenditure.

21. Proportionality Does Not Mean Mathematical Equality

This is an important examination point.

Proportionality ≠ equality.

For example:

A serious breach may justify a substantial remedy even where the remedy is much larger than the defendant expected.

Conversely, a technically established breach may justify only a limited remedy if the actual legally recoverable loss is small.

Therefore the correct question is:

Is the remedy appropriately related to the legal wrong and its consequences?

not:

Are both sides treated identically?

22. Proportionality in Contractual Sanctions

Contractual sanctions can include:

late-payment charges;

termination rights;

liquidated damages;

retention sums;

forfeiture provisions;

performance security;

penalties;

suspension rights.

Courts may distinguish between a legitimate commercial allocation of risk and a sanction that is excessive relative to the anticipated harm.

The DIFC authorities are particularly clear on this distinction. In Siraj Power, for example, the court focused on whether the contractual amount was manifestly disproportionate to anticipated loss, rather than requiring mathematical symmetry between the parties. (DIFC Courts)

23. Proportionality and Punitive/Enhanced Damages

Civil law generally focuses on compensation.

However, particular legal systems may permit enhanced damages in exceptional circumstances.

For example, the DIFC Law of Damages and Remedies contains provisions permitting additional damages in defined circumstances involving deliberate and particularly egregious or offensive conduct.

The courts have therefore treated enhanced damages as a distinct remedy requiring its own statutory conditions rather than automatically following from ordinary breach.

This reinforces:

The remedy must match the legal basis on which it is sought.

24. Proportionality and Double Recovery

Consider:

Actual loss = AED 100,000.

Claimant receives AED 100,000 compensatory damages.

Claimant then seeks another AED 100,000 for the same loss under a different legal label.

That would potentially produce:

AED 200,000 recovery for AED 100,000 loss.

Proportionality prevents the remedy from becoming a windfall.

However, separate heads of legally recognised loss can coexist where they compensate genuinely different interests.

25. Proportionality in Litigation Costs

The principle is particularly developed in the DIFC.

For standard-basis costs, courts consider whether costs bear a reasonable relationship to:

sums in issue;

non-monetary relief;

complexity;

additional work caused by the other party's conduct.

Melody & Molly v Melance makes clear that proportionality is not determined by a rigid percentage of the claim value. (DIFC Courts)

This is important because:

A AED 10 million dispute does not automatically justify AED 5 million in legal costs.

Likewise, a technically complex but low-value dispute may legitimately require more work than its monetary value alone suggests.

26. Proportionality in Freezing Orders

A freezing order is protective rather than final compensation.

Therefore, the court must consider:

amount of the claim;

assets available;

risk of dissipation;

necessity of the order;

whether less intrusive protection is possible.

The older DIFC CFI 012/2009 decision is useful because it illustrates judicial consideration of limiting the freeze to the amount reasonably necessary rather than mechanically freezing all identified assets. (DIFC Courts)

27. Proportionality and Digital/Cyber Civil Remedies

The principle is increasingly important in digital disputes.

Suppose an employee improperly accesses a company's database.

Possible remedies include:

deletion of copied information;

preservation of evidence;

limited injunction;

account restrictions;

damages;

disclosure orders.

A court should distinguish between:

protection of legitimate confidential information

and

an unnecessarily broad restriction on unrelated business activity.

This is particularly important in disputes involving:

AI;

cloud systems;

digital assets;

source code;

platform accounts;

customer databases;

cybersecurity;

blockchain assets.

28. Proportionality and Digital Assets

Digital assets make proportionality especially important because:

assets can be transferred rapidly;

wallets may contain mixed assets;

tracing may be difficult;

freezing may affect legitimate transactions;

third-party assets may become involved.

The modern DIFC Digital Economy Court framework therefore provides an increasingly important environment for applying traditional civil remedies to technologically complex assets.

The remedy should protect the claimant's legal interest without automatically treating every digitally connected asset as belonging to the defendant.

29. Proportionality and Good Faith

Good faith can support proportionality, but it should not be confused with an unlimited judicial power to rewrite contracts.

A court may consider:

whether a party exploited a technical breach;

whether a party caused avoidable loss;

whether contractual rights were exercised for their legitimate purpose;

whether a claimant contributed to the damage.

But:

Good faith does not automatically invalidate every harsh contractual provision.

The court must identify the applicable statutory or contractual basis for intervention.

30. Proportionality Test for UAE Civil Remedies

A useful analytical test is:

Step 1 — Identify the legal wrong

Was there:

breach of contract?

tort?

unjust enrichment?

property interference?

statutory violation?

Step 2 — Identify the protected interest

What does the remedy seek to protect?

money;

property;

confidentiality;

contractual performance;

possession;

reputation;

data;

another legally recognised interest?

Step 3 — Establish causation

What loss or risk resulted from the wrong?

Step 4 — Quantify the legally recoverable harm

Separate:

proven loss;

speculative loss;

unrelated loss;

duplicated loss.

Step 5 — Choose the appropriate remedy

Consider:

damages;

restitution;

specific performance;

injunction;

declaration;

interest;

costs.

Step 6 — Test proportionality

Ask:

Is the remedy reasonably connected to the seriousness, consequences and purpose of the legal wrong?

Step 7 — Consider less intrusive alternatives

Particularly for:

injunctions;

freezing orders;

disclosure orders;

specific performance.

Step 8 — Avoid double recovery

Ensure different remedies do not compensate the same loss twice.

31. Practical Examples

Example 1 — Construction delay

Contract price: AED 20 million.

Actual delay loss: AED 500,000.

Contractual compensation: AED 10 million.

The court may examine whether the agreed amount is legally enforceable or manifestly disproportionate under the applicable regime.

This is where authorities such as Panther and Siraj Power become relevant. (DIFC Courts)

Example 2 — Defective construction

Necessary rectification: AED 100,000.

Claimant demands AED 1 million including improvements and unrelated upgrades.

The court may distinguish:

necessary rectification;

improvements;

new works;

unrelated expenditure.

Phoebe v Peter illustrates the importance of this distinction. (DIFC Courts)

Example 3 — Confidential information

An employee takes 20 confidential files.

An injunction preventing the employee from working anywhere in the industry indefinitely may be excessively broad.

A more targeted remedy might address:

use of confidential information;

copying;

disclosure;

specified customer data.

Example 4 — Freezing order

Claim = AED 5 million.

Defendant has AED 50 million in unrelated assets.

A court must consider whether freezing all AED 50 million is necessary or whether a narrower order would adequately protect the claim.

32. Onshore UAE vs DIFC

This distinction is essential.

Onshore UAE

The starting point is:

Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 Civil Transactions Law;

applicable procedural legislation;

specialised federal legislation;

relevant Emirate legislation;

contractual provisions;

applicable judicial interpretation.

DIFC

The DIFC has its own:

contract law;

damages and remedies legislation;

Rules of the DIFC Courts;

Court of First Instance;

Court of Appeal;

Digital Economy Court.

Therefore, the DIFC cases discussed above are persuasive/illustrative for understanding proportionality in the UAE legal environment but are not automatically binding on onshore UAE courts.

This qualification is especially important in an examination or legal opinion.

33. Important Legal Principles from the Cases

34. Key Distinctions for Examination

Proportionality vs Reasonableness

Reasonableness:
Was the conduct or amount reasonable?

Proportionality:
Does the response bear an appropriate relationship to the wrong, loss or objective?

Proportionality vs Equality

Equality: same treatment.

Proportionality: treatment corresponding to the relevant circumstances.

Proportionality vs Mitigation

Mitigation: claimant should reasonably limit its loss.

Proportionality: remedy should correspond appropriately to the wrong and its consequences.

They often operate together.

Proportionality vs Compensation

Compensation: substantive purpose of restoring the claimant for legally recoverable loss.

Proportionality: helps determine the appropriate extent and form of the remedy.

35. Six Core Principles to Remember

A remedy should correspond to the legal wrong and its consequences.

Compensation should be based on legally recoverable loss, not speculation.

Agreed compensation can be subject to statutory judicial control where applicable.

Injunctions and freezing orders should be appropriately tailored to the risk they address.

A claimant should not obtain double recovery for the same loss.

Proportionality does not mean mathematical equality or a fixed percentage.

36. One-Minute Revision

Proportionality Principle in UAE Civil Remedies

Meaning:
A civil remedy should not go materially beyond what is justified by the legal wrong, loss, risk or legitimate remedial objective.

Main areas:

Damages

Agreed compensation

Contractual sanctions

Restitution

Specific performance

Injunctions

Freezing orders

Interest

Litigation costs

Core test:

Wrong → Protected Interest → Causation → Proven Loss/Risk → Appropriate Remedy → Necessity → Proportionality → No Double Recovery

Important cases:

Panther Real Estate Development v MESC — proportionality of agreed compensation.

Siraj Power v Al Tajir Glass — manifest disproportionality.

Dattani v DAMAC — restitution and additional damages.

Phoebe v Peter — proportionality of rectification damages.

LXT v SIR Real Estate — injunctions.

Ohtli v Onora — continuing proportionality of interim relief.

Golden Sands Hotel v Brighton Rock — tailored injunctive relief.

Melody & Molly v Melance — proportionality of costs.

Final conclusion

The proportionality principle in UAE civil remedies prevents the remedial system from becoming either under-compensatory or excessively punitive. It requires the court to connect the remedy to the nature of the legal wrong, proven loss, causation, contractual allocation of risk, necessity of protective relief and avoidance of double recovery. The principle is especially visible in contractual compensation, damages, injunctions, freezing orders and costs. The DIFC jurisprudence provides particularly developed examples, while onshore UAE disputes must be analysed primarily under the current Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 and the legislation applicable to the particular remedy.

Available next action: Create a downloadable DOCX file here in this chat containing the editable prose above