Civil Law and UAE: Public Authority Claims

1. Introduction

Public authority claims are civil or commercial claims involving the UAE Government, an Emirate government, a government department, public authority, public agency, or another entity legally treated as a government entity.

Examples include claims concerning:

• government contracts;
• procurement;
• construction projects;
• concessions;
• infrastructure;
• land and property;
• public services;
• regulatory decisions;
• unpaid invoices;
• compensation for government acts;
• termination of government contracts;
• arbitration involving government entities; and
• enforcement of judgments against public authorities.

A crucial point is that a claim against a government entity is not simply an ordinary private civil claim. Special rules may govern jurisdiction, pre-litigation procedures, representation, settlement and enforcement.

The rules also differ between the federal government, individual Emirates, Dubai government entities, DIFC entities and other public bodies.

2. Constitutional Basis

The UAE Constitution expressly recognises civil, commercial and administrative disputes involving the UAE Government.

Article 102 provides that Federal Courts of First Instance have jurisdiction, within their territorial jurisdiction, over civil, commercial and administrative disputes between the UAE and individuals, whether the UAE is plaintiff or defendant. Articles 104 and 105 preserve the jurisdiction of local judicial authorities over matters not assigned to the federal courts and permit transfer of local jurisdiction to federal courts by federal legislation.

Therefore, the first question in a public-authority claim is:

Which government entity is involved, and which judicial system has jurisdiction over the particular dispute?

3. Current Dubai Government Claims Law

An especially important recent development is Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025 Concerning Government Claims.

It replaced the previous Dubai Government Claims Law No. 3 of 1996 and related legislation. The law applies to claims involving the Government of Dubai and Government Entities. It expressly defines “Government Entity” broadly to include government departments, public agencies and corporations, councils and authorities, including authorities supervising special development zones and free zones, including the DIFC.

The law's objectives include:

• efficient management of government claims;
• expeditious justice;
• transparency;
• governance;
• amicable settlement;
• protection of government interests; and
• regulation of enforcement against government entities. 

4. Pre-Litigation Requirement in Dubai

One of the most important rules concerns prior submission of a complaint.

Under Article 5 of Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025, a person wishing to bring a claim against the Government or a Government Entity must, before commencing the claim before a court, arbitration body or other judicial body, submit a statement of complaint to the Government of Dubai Legal Affairs Department with the supporting documents.

The Department then refers the complaint to the relevant government entity.

The government entity generally has 15 working days to respond.

The Department attempts amicable settlement for up to 60 working days. If settlement is unsuccessful, the claimant can obtain a Certificate of Procedural Compliance and proceed to the appropriate judicial or arbitral forum.

5. Effect of Failure to Follow the Procedure

Article 26 of Law No. 16 of 2025 is particularly important.

Failure to satisfy the prescribed procedures makes the claim inadmissible before the relevant judicial, conciliation or arbitration body.

Thus, in a Dubai government claim, procedural compliance is not merely an administrative formality.

Basic sequence

Claim arises

↓

Complaint to Government Legal Affairs Department

↓

Government response

↓

Amicable settlement

↓

Certificate of Procedural Compliance

↓

Court / arbitration / other competent forum

6. Suspension of Time Limits

Article 10 of the 2025 Dubai law provides an important protection for claimants.

Applicable time-bar, inadmissibility and limitation periods are suspended from the date the Department receives a complaint satisfying the statutory requirements until the relevant settlement period ends or the certificate is issued.

This prevents the mandatory pre-litigation procedure from unfairly consuming the claimant's limitation period.

7. Government Representation

Under Article 4, the Government of Dubai Legal Affairs Department is the legal representative of the Government and Government Entities in claims and disputes before:

• courts;
• conciliation bodies;
• arbitration bodies;
• tribunals;
• centres; and
• enforcement authorities.

Government entities must coordinate with the Department concerning claims and settlements.

This reflects an important public-law principle:

Government litigation is centrally managed to protect public resources and maintain consistency in the government's legal position.

8. Claims Against Federal Government Entities

Dubai's Law No. 16 of 2025 should not be treated as a universal UAE Government Claims Law.

It principally concerns the Government of Dubai and Dubai Government Entities.

Claims against:

• federal ministries;
• federal authorities;
• Abu Dhabi government entities;
• Sharjah government entities; or
• other Emirate-level bodies

may be governed by different legislation and procedures.

This jurisdictional distinction is essential.

9. Government Contracts

Public authority claims frequently arise from government contracts.

Examples:

• construction contracts;
• infrastructure contracts;
• technology contracts;
• procurement agreements;
• consultancy contracts;
• public-private partnerships;
• facilities-management contracts;
• concession agreements.

A government entity may have contractual rights concerning:

• performance bonds;
• advance-payment guarantees;
• delay damages;
• termination;
• inspection;
• variation;
• suspension;
• indemnity;
• dispute resolution.

However, the fact that one party is a government entity does not automatically transform every contractual dispute into an administrative dispute.

The court must examine:

1. the nature of the contract;
2. the governing legislation;
3. the powers of the government entity;
4. the contractual terms;
5. the dispute-resolution clause; and
6. the applicable jurisdiction.

10. Public Authority Claims and Administrative Acts

A claimant should distinguish between:

Contractual claim

Example:

A government department failed to pay AED 5 million under a construction contract.

Regulatory/administrative claim

Example:

A public authority exercised a statutory regulatory power that allegedly caused legally actionable harm.

Tort/delict claim

Example:

Negligent conduct by a public authority caused physical property damage.

The legal basis, jurisdiction and available remedies can differ substantially.

11. Government Entities and DIFC Courts

Dubai presents a particularly interesting structure because it contains:

• Dubai Courts; and
• DIFC Courts.

The Supreme Legislation Committee has stated that the DIFC Courts form part of Dubai's judicial system and that a Dubai Government entity may agree to submit a civil or commercial dispute to the DIFC Courts, subject to the applicable statutory requirements and government-claims procedures.

Therefore, the presence of a government entity does not automatically exclude DIFC jurisdiction.

But the necessary statutory and procedural requirements must still be satisfied.

12. Public Authority Claims and Arbitration

Government entities can also become parties to arbitration.

The claimant must examine:

• whether the government entity has authority to arbitrate;
• whether the contract contains a valid arbitration agreement;
• whether any pre-arbitration government-claims procedure is mandatory;
• the seat;
• applicable arbitration legislation;
• sovereign/public-law issues; and
• enforcement arrangements.

Under Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025, claims involving government entities expressly include proceedings before arbitration bodies, tribunals and centres.

The Dubai Legal Affairs Department also states that potential arbitration claims involving Dubai Government entities are subject to the applicable government-claims/amicable-settlement process.

13. Enforcement Against Government Entities

This is one of the most important differences between ordinary private defendants and government entities.

Article 15 of Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025 provides that debts or obligations owed by the Government or Government Entities cannot be recovered through ordinary seizure, attachment, public auction or similar processes against government property, funds or assets.

Article 16 further prevents execution circuits from registering or conducting ordinary execution proceedings against government entities in the usual manner.

Instead, Article 17 establishes a special enforcement mechanism involving the Director General of the Legal Affairs Department and the Director General of the Ruler's Court.

Thus:

Winning a judgment against a government entity and enforcing that judgment are legally distinct stages.

14. Public Interest and Government Assets

The special enforcement mechanism reflects the principle that public assets cannot simply be treated like the private assets of an ordinary judgment debtor.

Government property may be dedicated to:

• public services;
• infrastructure;
• public administration;
• essential facilities;
• public funds.

Consequently, execution law must balance:

Creditor's right to enforce judgment

with

Protection of public assets and continuity of public administration.

15. Case Law 1 — Central Bank of Sudan v Africa Alpha Capital

Central Bank of Sudan v Africa Alpha Capital 1 Co Ltd, Dubai Court of Cassation Appeal No. 480/2012 (Commercial)

This is an important authority concerning claims involving a public/state-linked entity.

The dispute included an argument that the Central Bank of Sudan should enjoy immunity from judicial proceedings because it was connected with a foreign government.

The Dubai Court of Cassation rejected the immunity argument in relation to the bank's commercial and banking transactions, and treated the relevant commercial activity as subject to judicial claims.

The decision is significant because it illustrates the distinction between:

• sovereign governmental activity; and
• commercial activity undertaken by a state-related entity.

The case was discussed in Pearl Petroleum v Kurdistan Regional Government before the DIFC Courts.

Principle

Governmental status does not automatically convert every commercial transaction into an immune transaction.

16. Case Law 2 — Pearl Petroleum v Kurdistan Regional Government

Pearl Petroleum Company Limited & Others v The Kurdistan Regional Government of Iraq [2017] DIFC ARB 003

This case involved a claim concerning a foreign governmental entity and an arbitral award.

The KRG raised arguments concerning state or sovereign immunity.

The DIFC Court examined:

• the statutory basis of DIFC law;
• the nature of state immunity;
• the distinction between procedural and substantive law;
• enforcement of arbitration awards; and
• the effect of a government entity's participation in commercial arbitration.

The Court noted the Dubai Court of Cassation authority concerning the Central Bank of Sudan and commercial activity. It ultimately did not need to conclusively determine the general existence and scope of state immunity in UAE/DIFC law because the circumstances before it involved an effective waiver argument.

Principle

A government entity involved in commercial arbitration cannot simply assume that government status automatically defeats the proceedings.

17. Case Law 3 — FAL Oil Company v Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority

FAL Oil Company v Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority [2020] DIFC ENF 221/2019

This is particularly important because the respondent was Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority (SEWA), a public authority.

FAL sought recognition and enforcement of a Sharjah judgment in the DIFC.

SEWA argued that it enjoyed sovereign immunity.

The DIFC Court considered the argument and explained the limits of treating sovereign immunity as automatically applicable to an Emirate-level public authority.

The Court also considered the statutory structure governing the DIFC Courts and the source of applicable law.

Principle

The status of a public authority must be examined through the applicable legal framework; immunity cannot simply be assumed from the entity's governmental character.

This case is especially useful for understanding the relationship between public authority status and enforcement.

18. Case Law 4 — Ashok Kumar Goel v Credit Suisse

Ashok Kumar Goel v Credit Suisse (Switzerland) Limited [2021] DIFC CA 002

This case is important for government claims because it concerned the relationship between statutory jurisdiction and arrangements governing disputes involving Dubai Government entities.

The DIFC Court of Appeal examined the Protocol of Jurisdiction between the DIFC Courts and Dubai Courts.

The Court emphasised that a protocol cannot independently alter the statutory allocation of jurisdiction.

The case demonstrates that government claims must first be analysed through the governing legislation rather than simply through institutional arrangements.

Principle

A government-claims protocol cannot override the statutory jurisdiction of a court.

19. Case Law 5 — Hardt v DAMAC

Dr Lothar Ludwig Hardt and Hardt Trading FZE v DAMAC (DIFC) Company Limited & Others [2009] DIFC CFI 036

This case considered the relationship between the DIFC Courts' statutory jurisdiction and the Dubai–DIFC jurisdictional arrangements.

The Court recognised that the Protocol could facilitate cooperation between the courts but could not itself enlarge or reduce the statutory jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts.

Principle

For a public authority claim involving DIFC and Dubai:

Identify statutory jurisdiction first → then consider protocol/cooperation arrangements.

This prevents parties from using an administrative arrangement to create jurisdiction that legislation does not provide.

20. Case Law 6 — Taaleem v National Bonds

Taaleem PJSC v National Bonds Corporation PJSC & Deyaar Development PJSC [2010] DIFC CFI 014

The case examined the jurisdictional relationship between Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts and the relevance of the Protocol.

The Court treated the statutory jurisdictional framework as fundamental while recognising the practical role of the Protocol.

Principle

A government-related contractual dispute must be analysed according to:

• statutory jurisdiction;
• contractual arrangements;
• applicable procedural rules; and
• any valid court-selection agreement.

The protocol itself does not become a substitute for legislation.

21. Case Law 7 — Bocimar International v Emirates Trading Agency

Bocimar International NV v Emirates Trading Agency LLC [2015] DIFC CFI 008

This case concerned enforcement and the interaction between DIFC judicial orders and Dubai enforcement mechanisms.

It is relevant to public-authority claims because government disputes frequently involve questions concerning:

• judgment recognition;
• enforcement;
• inter-court cooperation;
• execution outside the DIFC.

The case demonstrates the importance of separating adjudication from enforcement and examining the statutory framework governing each stage.

22. Case Law 8 — Nihan v Nicholas & Niaz

Nihan v Nicholas & Niaz [2024] DIFC CA 012

This case is useful where a dispute involves arbitration and property or registered rights.

The Court considered arguments concerning arbitration, public policy and the consequences of an arbitral determination affecting registered property interests.

Its broader relevance to public authority claims lies in the principle that an arbitral agreement does not automatically eliminate mandatory statutory rules concerning matters governed by public law or registration legislation.

Principle

Contractual or arbitral arrangements operate within mandatory statutory boundaries.

23. Case Law 9 — Orlagh v Orchid

Orlagh v Orchid [2026] DIFC CA 001

This recent DIFC Court of Appeal decision involved concurrent proceedings concerning an onshore Dubai construction contract and proceedings in the DIFC Courts.

The DIFC Court of Appeal examined the relationship between the Dubai proceedings and the DIFC proceedings and ultimately allowed the appeal concerning the DIFC proceedings.

Relevance

It illustrates a recurring problem in UAE public/commercial disputes:

The existence of multiple UAE court systems requires careful analysis of jurisdiction, contractual forum clauses and the statutory framework.

24. Public Authority Claims: Main Categories

A. Contractual claims

Examples:

• unpaid contract price;
• delay;
• wrongful termination;
• variation;
• performance bond;
• defects;
• damages.

B. Tort claims

Examples:

• negligent public works;
• defective infrastructure;
• damage caused by public operations.

C. Property claims

Examples:

• government land;
• compulsory acquisition;
• registration;
• development rights;
• public property.

D. Regulatory claims

Examples:

• licences;
• permits;
• administrative decisions;
• regulatory sanctions.

E. Procurement claims

Examples:

• tender rejection;
• award disputes;
• procurement compliance;
• supplier grievances.

F. Arbitration claims

Examples:

• construction arbitration;
• infrastructure disputes;
• concession disputes;
• PPP disputes.

G. Enforcement claims

Examples:

• enforcement of judgments;
• enforcement of arbitral awards;
• government payment procedures.

25. Government Claim vs Ordinary Civil Claim

26. Government Claims and Limitation

A claimant must carefully calculate limitation periods.

This is particularly important because special government-claim procedures can occur before court proceedings.

Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025 addresses this by suspending applicable time limits during the statutory complaint and settlement process, subject to its conditions.

Therefore:

Never assume that filing a government complaint has the same legal effect as filing a court case unless the applicable statute expressly provides so.

27. Government Claims and Evidence

Public authority disputes frequently involve:

• official correspondence;
• tender documents;
• government approvals;
• technical reports;
• expert reports;
• payment certificates;
• project records;
• inspection reports;
• administrative decisions.

The claimant should establish:

1. the authority's legal status;
2. the contractual or statutory duty;
3. breach or unlawful conduct;
4. causation;
5. actual loss;
6. documentary evidence;
7. compliance with pre-action requirements.

28. Government Contracts and Authorised Signatories

An important practical issue is whether the government officer who signed the agreement had authority.

Government contracts may be subject to:

• establishing legislation;
• delegation rules;
• procurement legislation;
• internal authority matrices;
• financial regulations.

Dubai's Legal Affairs Department itself emphasises that contracts must be signed by authorised government representatives and that the relevant authority derives from the entity's establishing law and internal policies.

Consequently, a claimant should not assume that every document signed by a government employee constitutes a binding government contract.

29. Public Authority Claims and Government Procurement

Government procurement disputes can involve:

• tender requirements;
• bid bonds;
• performance bonds;
• award decisions;
• supplier qualification;
• contract execution;
• termination.

Dubai government procurement is governed by its own legislation, including Dubai Law No. 12 of 2020 concerning Contracts and Warehouse Management in the Government of Dubai.

At the federal level, the Federal Government Procurement regime must be considered separately.

Thus, there is no single procurement rule applicable identically to every UAE public authority.

30. Government Claims and Sovereign Immunity

It is important to distinguish:

UAE government entity

A body established under UAE federal or Emirate law.

Foreign state

Another sovereign state's government.

Foreign state-owned company

A company owned or controlled by a foreign government.

The legal treatment can differ substantially.

The Pearl Petroleum and FAL Oil v SEWA authorities demonstrate that arguments about sovereign immunity require careful identification of:

• the entity;
• the nature of the activity;
• applicable law;
• jurisdiction;
• waiver;
• enforcement;
• whether the entity is actually entitled to immunity. 

31. Public Authority Claims and Public Interest

Public authorities perform governmental functions.

Therefore, courts must often balance:

Individual/private rights

against

public interest and continuity of government functions.

This does not mean that government entities are legally immune from civil responsibility.

Instead, the law may impose special procedures and enforcement mechanisms to protect public administration while still allowing judicial determination of legitimate claims.

Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025 expressly identifies both access to expeditious justice and protection of government/public interests as objectives.

32. Special Protection Does Not Mean No Liability

A common misconception is:

“The government cannot be sued.”

That is incorrect as a general proposition.

The UAE constitutional framework expressly contemplates civil, commercial and administrative disputes involving government and individuals.

The correct proposition is:

A government entity may be sued, but the claimant may have to comply with special jurisdictional, procedural and enforcement rules.

33. Practical Example — Government Construction Contract

Suppose Company A enters into a AED 100 million infrastructure contract with a Dubai Government Entity.

The government entity allegedly:

• delays approvals;
• suspends work;
• refuses certified payments;
• terminates the contract.

Company A claims AED 25 million.

The claimant should consider:

Step 1

Identify the exact government entity.

Step 2

Examine the contract and dispute clause.

Step 3

Determine whether arbitration applies.

Step 4

Comply with Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025.

Step 5

Submit the complaint to the Legal Affairs Department.

Step 6

Participate in settlement procedures.

Step 7

Obtain the Certificate of Procedural Compliance where required.

Step 8

Commence the appropriate court/arbitration proceedings.

Step 9

Prove breach, causation and loss.

Step 10

If successful, follow the special government enforcement mechanism.

34. Practical Example — Government Regulatory Decision

Suppose a public authority cancels a licence.

The affected company wants compensation.

The company cannot automatically treat the dispute as an ordinary breach-of-contract case.

It must determine:

• whether the authority acted under statutory powers;
• whether the decision is administrative;
• which court or tribunal has jurisdiction;
• whether an administrative review procedure exists;
• whether compensation is legally available;
• whether the government-claims procedure applies.

35. Practical Example — Judgment Against Government Entity

Suppose a contractor obtains a final judgment for AED 10 million.

The contractor cannot necessarily instruct the execution court to:

• seize government bank accounts;
• attach public buildings;
• auction government vehicles; or
• sell government assets.

Under Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025, special enforcement procedures apply and ordinary execution against government property is restricted.

36. Key Principles

1. Government entities can be subject to civil and commercial claims.
2. Jurisdiction must be established before considering the merits.
3. Federal and Emirate-level government claims are not governed by identical procedures.
4. Dubai currently has a specific Government Claims Law, Law No. 16 of 2025.
5. Prior submission to the Dubai Legal Affairs Department is generally mandatory for claims against Dubai Government entities under that law.
6. Failure to comply can make the claim inadmissible.
7. Settlement is an important stage of the government-claims process.
8. Government entities have special representation arrangements.
9. Government contracts may be subject to special procurement and contracting legislation.
10. A government employee's signature does not automatically establish contractual authority.
11. Arbitration involving a government entity requires analysis of statutory authority and procedural requirements.
12. Judgments against government entities may be subject to special enforcement procedures.
13. Government assets receive special protection from ordinary execution processes.
14. Government status does not automatically eliminate civil responsibility.
15. Foreign-state immunity and UAE government-entity status should not be confused.
16. DIFC cases are particularly useful for understanding cross-system jurisdiction, arbitration and enforcement, but DIFC precedent is not automatically binding on mainland UAE courts.

37. Important Case Law Summary

38. Short Exam Answer

Public authority claims in UAE civil law are claims involving the Federal Government, an Emirate government, government departments, public authorities or other legally recognised government entities. Such claims may concern contracts, procurement, construction, tort, property, regulation, arbitration and enforcement. The UAE Constitution expressly recognises civil, commercial and administrative disputes between government and individuals. Special procedural regimes may nevertheless apply. In Dubai, Law No. 16 of 2025 Concerning Government Claims requires a claimant generally to submit a complaint to the Government of Dubai Legal Affairs Department before commencing proceedings and provides for an amicable-settlement process. Failure to comply can result in inadmissibility. The law also establishes special rules concerning representation and enforcement against government entities. Cases such as Central Bank of Sudan v Africa Alpha Capital, Pearl Petroleum v Kurdistan Regional Government, FAL Oil v Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority, Ashok Kumar Goel v Credit Suisse and Hardt v DAMAC illustrate issues of governmental status, jurisdiction, immunity, arbitration and enforcement. The principal rule is that government entities are not generally immune from civil responsibility, but claims against them must comply with the special statutory framework applicable to the particular authority and Emirate.

Conclusion

The UAE approach to public authority claims combines accountability with special procedural protection for public administration.

A claimant must therefore distinguish between the right to bring a claim and the procedure by which that claim must be brought and enforced.

For Dubai Government entities, the current framework is especially significant because Law No. 16 of 2025 now centralises government claims, requires a pre-litigation complaint and settlement process, regulates government representation, and establishes a special mechanism for enforcement of judgments against government entities.

The broader UAE position is best understood through four principles:

Government can be sued + Special procedure may apply + Public assets receive special protection + Courts retain the power to determine legitimate civil claims.

The precise procedure must always be determined by which government entity is involved, which Emirate or federal system applies, the nature of the claim, and whether the dispute is contractual, administrative, tortious, arbitral or enforcement-related.