Civil Law and UAE: Public Authority Negligence Claims

1. Meaning

A public authority negligence claim arises when a government department, public authority, municipality, regulator, public body, or other legally responsible public entity allegedly causes loss through an unreasonable act or omission.

Typical examples include:

• negligent maintenance of public roads;
• failure to maintain public infrastructure;
• unsafe public facilities;
• negligent inspection or certification;
• failure to take reasonable regulatory precautions;
• negligent handling of applications;
• wrongful or careless administrative conduct causing civil loss;
• failure to warn of a known public danger;
• negligent operation of public services;
• damage caused by public employees acting within their functions.

The basic civil-law question is:

Did the public authority owe a legally recognised duty, breach the applicable standard of care, cause actionable loss, and become legally responsible for the resulting damage?

A public authority does not become automatically liable merely because a person suffered loss after interacting with government.

2. Current UAE Legal Framework

The current UAE Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective from 1 June 2026. Therefore, current UAE civil-liability analysis should begin with the 2025 law rather than treating the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law as the current code.

Public-authority claims also depend heavily on:

• the identity of the public body;
• federal or Emirate-level jurisdiction;
• the statutory powers and duties of the authority;
• applicable administrative legislation;
• special government-claims procedures;
• public-law limitations;
• limitation periods;
• immunity or enforcement rules;
• whether the claim is contractual, tortious, statutory, or administrative.

This makes public-authority negligence different from an ordinary private negligence claim.

3. Public Authority vs Private Defendant

A private defendant is normally analysed through ordinary civil liability.

A public authority requires an additional inquiry:

Question 1

Is the defendant actually a public authority?

Question 2

Which legislation governs the authority?

Question 3

Was the conduct governmental/regulatory or commercial/private?

Question 4

Does a special government-claims procedure apply?

Question 5

Does the claimant have a recognised civil cause of action?

Question 6

Can the authority legally be ordered to pay or perform the requested remedy?

Thus:

Public status affects procedure, jurisdiction and sometimes substantive liability, but it does not mean that every government act is immune from civil consequences.

4. Dubai Government Claims — Important Current Development

For Dubai Government entities, the current procedural framework includes Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025 Concerning Government Claims in the Emirate of Dubai.

The law applies to claims involving the Ruler, Crown Prince, Deputy Ruler, Government and Government Entities and establishes a preliminary complaint process before judicial proceedings.

A claimant generally must first submit the complaint to the Dubai Government Legal Affairs Department before commencing the substantive claim. The Department refers the complaint to the government entity, seeks a response and attempts amicable settlement.

The current law is therefore extremely important for anyone bringing a negligence claim against a Dubai Government entity.

Important distinction

This is primarily a procedural gateway.

It does not mean:

“Government entity = no liability.”

Instead, it means:

A claimant must satisfy the special procedural framework before pursuing the substantive claim.

5. Basic Elements of Public Authority Negligence

A useful framework is:

1. Duty

Did the authority owe a legal duty to the claimant?

2. Breach

Did it fail to exercise the required level of care?

3. Causation

Did the breach cause the claimant's loss?

4. Actionable damage

Was the loss legally recognised and sufficiently proved?

5. Attribution

Can the conduct legally be attributed to the public authority?

6. Defences/limitations

Are there statutory powers, contributory conduct, causation issues, immunity rules, limitation periods or other defences?

7. Remedy

What relief is legally available?

6. Standard of Care

Public-authority negligence cannot always be assessed simply by asking:

“Was the authority's decision wrong?”

The more appropriate question is:

Did the authority fail to exercise the level of care legally required in the particular circumstances?

Relevant considerations may include:

• nature of the public function;
• foreseeable risk;
• seriousness of potential harm;
• resources and practical circumstances;
• statutory responsibilities;
• technical standards;
• professional standards;
• warnings available to the authority;
• reasonable alternatives;
• conduct of the claimant.

7. Case Law

There is an important limitation on UAE case research here: reported UAE onshore cases specifically framed as “public authority negligence” are much less abundant than private negligence cases.

Accordingly, the following authorities combine:

1. UAE/DIFC cases directly relevant to negligence and public bodies;
2. cases concerning public authorities and their separate legal personality;
3. cases establishing the duty/causation framework applicable to civil negligence.

DIFC decisions must be treated as illustrative rather than automatically binding on UAE mainland courts.

8. Case 1 — Shihab Khalil v Shuaa Capital PSC [2009] DIFC CFI 017

This case is particularly useful for understanding the structure of a negligence claim.

The DIFC Court explained that a negligence claim requires both:

• want of due care; and
• loss caused by that lack of care.

The Court emphasised that the impact of the defendant's conduct on the claimant is an essential component of the cause of action.

The Court also discussed the familiar duty-of-care considerations of:

• reasonable foreseeability;
• sufficient proximity; and
• whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty.

Relevance to public authorities

A claimant cannot simply allege:

“The authority acted carelessly.”

The claimant must establish the legal connection between the authority's conduct and the claimant's legally recognised loss.

Principle

Public-authority negligence requires both breach and legally sufficient causal loss.

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

The DIFC Court expressly considered the negligence framework.

The Court referred to the requirements that:

1. the defendant owes a duty of care;
2. the defendant breaches the duty; and
3. the breach causes loss.

The Court also explained causation and intervening events.

Principle

A claimant must demonstrate more than a defective decision or careless conduct.

The causal chain must connect:

Authority's conduct → breach → claimant's loss.

Public-authority application

Suppose a municipality fails to repair a dangerous public structure.

The claimant must still establish:

• existence of the relevant duty;
• failure to perform it appropriately;
• actual accident/injury;
• causal relationship.

10. Case 3 — Gate Mena DMCC & Huobi Mena FZE v Tabarak Investment Capital Ltd [2023] DIFC CA 002

The DIFC Court of Appeal discussed the elements of negligence and the duty-of-care test.

It explained that duty involves:

• foreseeability;
• proximity; and
• whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose the duty.

The Court also considered the concept of assumption of responsibility.

Importance

This is especially relevant to public authorities because an authority may:

• issue safety information;
• provide a certification;
• operate an inspection system;
• assume responsibility for a particular service.

But an assumption of responsibility should not be inferred merely because the authority exercises regulatory powers.

Principle

Regulatory power does not automatically equal a private-law duty to compensate every person affected by regulation.

The particular relationship and statutory context matter.

11. Case 4 — Punjab National Bank, DIFC Branch v NMC Healthcare LLC & Others [2023] DIFC CFI 079/2020

The Court explained that a negligence claim requires the claimant to establish:

• duty of care;
• breach;
• causation; and
• loss.

The Court also dealt with the requirements applicable to pure economic loss.

Public-authority relevance

Public-authority negligence claims frequently involve economic loss.

For example:

• a business loses revenue because of negligent regulatory action;
• a government inspection error causes business interruption;
• a public authority negligently delays a legally required process.

Economic loss requires careful analysis because not every financial consequence of governmental conduct is automatically recoverable in negligence.

Principle

Financial loss alone does not automatically establish a negligence claim.

12. Case 5 — Faizal Babu Moorkath v Expresso Telecom Group Ltd [2023] DIFC CFI 008

This case is particularly important for the concept of actionable loss.

The Court explained that before a negligence claim can succeed, the claimant must establish loss or damage of a type recognised by law.

Without actionable loss, a tort claim does not arise merely because the defendant acted wrongly.

Public-authority relevance

Suppose a public authority makes an administrative mistake but:

• no financial loss occurs;
• no property is damaged;
• no legally recognised injury results.

The claimant may have a complaint about the conduct, but a civil damages claim requires a legally recognised loss.

Principle

Wrongful conduct and compensable civil damage are distinct questions.

13. Case 6 — Ludiala v Lucaan Ltd [2020] DIFC SCT 139

This case demonstrates the importance of proving causation.

The claimant alleged psychological harm but the medical evidence did not sufficiently establish that the defendant's conduct caused the condition.

The Court therefore treated causation as unproven.

Public-authority relevance

The same principle applies to government negligence.

For example:

A claimant might allege:

“The authority's delay caused my business to fail.”

The claimant must establish the causal link.

It is insufficient merely to show:

• delay occurred; and
• business subsequently suffered.

Alternative causes must be considered.

Principle

Temporal sequence ≠ legal causation.

14. Case 7 — Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd & Bank Sarasin & Co Ltd [2009] DIFC CFI 026

This major DIFC case contains extensive analysis of negligence and duty of care.

The claimants alleged that statements and assurances made through a related entity and its representatives created duties of care.

The Court examined:

• assumption of responsibility;
• foreseeability;
• proximity;
• the relationship between different legal entities;
• vicarious liability;
• applicable law.

Public-authority relevance

The case demonstrates why it is important to identify which legal entity actually owed the duty.

This is particularly important in government structures where there may be:

• ministries;
• authorities;
• agencies;
• government-owned companies;
• regulators;
• separate statutory corporations.

Principle

Government affiliation alone does not necessarily establish liability of every related public entity.

15. Case 8 — FAL Oil Company v Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority [2019] DIFC ENF 221

This case is particularly relevant because it directly concerned a public authority.

The proceedings involved the Sharjah Electricity and Water Authority (SEWA).

The DIFC Court considered the legal status of SEWA and emphasised that it had been constituted as a public authority with its own legal personality. The Court discussed the distinction between the liability of a separate public entity and the liability of the State itself.

Principle

A public authority may have a legal personality separate from the State.

Therefore, the court must determine:

• who incurred the relevant obligation;
• who is legally responsible;
• whether the public authority and the State are legally distinct;
• whether state immunity or entity-specific rules are relevant.

Importance

This is highly relevant to public-authority negligence claims because a claimant must identify the correct defendant.

16. Case 9 — Muzoon Holding LLC v Arif Naqvi [2018] DIFC CFI 080

This case dealt with DIFC jurisdiction and tortious claims.

The Court explained that an “incident” for jurisdictional purposes may encompass an essential element of conduct or loss necessary to establish a tort claim.

Public-authority relevance

Where a public authority has acted across jurisdictions or through different branches/entities, the claimant may need to establish:

• where the relevant conduct occurred;
• where the loss occurred;
• which legal entity acted;
• which court has jurisdiction.

Principle

Substantive liability and jurisdiction must be analysed separately.

17. Case 10 — Korek Telecom v Iraq Telecom [2024] DIFC CA 016

This case is useful for understanding the relationship between private claims and conduct involving a foreign public authority.

The DIFC Court of Appeal considered whether allegations involving bribery of a public authority created actionable loss and discussed the foreign act-of-state doctrine. The Court concluded that the doctrine did not prevent arbitration between private parties concerning whether bribery of a foreign public authority had caused actionable loss.

Principle

The involvement of a public authority does not automatically transform every dispute into a non-justiciable governmental matter.

The court may still determine whether private parties suffered actionable civil loss.

Importance

This is particularly relevant to:

• corruption-related loss;
• regulatory decisions;
• public contracts;
• state-linked transactions;
• foreign governmental conduct.

18. Public Authority Negligence: Important Distinction Between Error and Negligence

Not every government error amounts to civil negligence.

For example:

Administrative error

A permit application is mistakenly delayed.

Negligence

The authority failed to follow an applicable safety procedure, creating a foreseeable risk that caused damage.

Lawful discretionary decision

The authority chooses one legally permitted policy option over another.

A claimant cannot necessarily convert disagreement with that policy choice into a negligence claim.

Therefore:

Unfavourable government action ≠ automatically negligent government action.

19. Regulatory Negligence

Regulatory negligence is particularly difficult.

Suppose a financial regulator fails to detect fraud by a licensed institution.

An affected investor may argue:

“The regulator should have discovered the fraud.”

The claimant must still establish:

• a duty owed specifically to that claimant or class;
• breach of the applicable standard;
• causation;
• actionable loss;
• absence of applicable statutory limitations or defences.

The mere existence of a regulatory responsibility does not automatically mean that every member of the public has a private damages claim against the regulator.

20. Public Safety Negligence

This is a more conventional category.

Examples:

• unsafe public road;
• defective traffic signal;
• dangerous bridge;
• negligently maintained public building;
• failure to repair known infrastructure defect;
• dangerous public facility.

Here the claimant may attempt to establish:

Known danger + authority's responsibility + failure to take reasonable precautions + foreseeable injury + causation.

This is conceptually closer to ordinary negligence.

21. Medical Public Authority Negligence

Public hospitals and public healthcare bodies create another category.

Potential claims may involve:

• negligent diagnosis;
• treatment error;
• failure to monitor;
• medication error;
• inadequate warning;
• defective medical system.

However, professional negligence generally requires evidence concerning the applicable professional standard.

The relevant question is not:

“Did the treatment produce a bad outcome?”

but:

Did the relevant healthcare provider fall below the legally required professional standard and cause actionable harm?

22. Public Authority Negligence and Expert Evidence

Expert evidence may become extremely important.

Examples:

Road accident

Traffic/infrastructure expert.

Medical negligence

Medical expert.

Structural failure

Civil/structural engineer.

Environmental contamination

Environmental expert.

Digital government system

IT/cybersecurity expert.

The expert should help establish:

• applicable standard;
• departure from standard;
• technical causation;
• extent of damage.

But the expert does not ultimately decide the legal question of liability.

23. Public Authority Negligence and Causation

Causation is frequently the hardest issue.

Consider:

A municipality allegedly fails to repair a road.

A driver crashes.

Possible causes include:

• defective road;
• excessive speed;
• defective vehicle;
• poor weather;
• another driver's conduct.

The claimant must establish the relevant causal contribution.

The court may therefore distinguish:

Cause in fact

from

legal responsibility for the loss.

24. Contributory Conduct

A claimant's own conduct may affect recovery.

Example:

A public authority fails to repair a damaged pavement.

But the claimant:

• ignores a clearly visible warning;
• walks into a restricted area;
• behaves recklessly.

The claimant's conduct may become relevant to:

• causation;
• allocation of responsibility;
• reduction of damages.

This is consistent with the broader negligence principle recognised in DIFC jurisprudence that liability may be reduced where the claimant's negligent conduct contributed to the loss. Gate Mena expressly discusses this concept.

25. Public Authority Negligence and Government Employees

A government employee may commit the relevant negligent act.

The legal question then becomes:

Is the authority itself legally responsible for the employee's conduct?

The analysis may involve:

• employment relationship;
• scope of employment;
• statutory duties;
• vicarious responsibility;
• separate personal liability;
• applicable government legislation.

A claimant should therefore identify both:

1. the individual conduct; and
2. the legal basis for attributing that conduct to the authority.

26. Public Authority vs Government-Owned Company

This distinction is critical.

A government-owned company is not automatically identical to a government department.

For example:

Ministry

≠

Statutory authority

≠

Government-owned company

≠

Semi-government company

≠

Private company with a government shareholder

The applicable legal regime may differ substantially.

The FAL Oil v SEWA decision is useful because it demonstrates the significance of separate legal personality for a public authority.

27. Dubai Procedural Requirements

Under current Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025, a person seeking to bring a claim against a Dubai Government entity must first submit the relevant complaint to the Dubai Government Legal Affairs Department.

The complaint should identify:

• claimant;
• government entity;
• facts;
• legal basis;
• remedies;
• supporting documents.

The government entity is given an opportunity to respond, and the Department seeks amicable settlement before litigation proceeds.

This is therefore an important practical step in a Dubai public-authority negligence claim.

28. Enforcement Against Government Entities

There is another important distinction:

Winning a judgment

does not necessarily mean

ordinary private execution against government assets.

Dubai's current Government Claims Law contains special rules concerning enforcement against the Government and Government Entities. Article 15 provides that debts cannot be recovered through ordinary seizure, public auction or acquisition processes against government property, funds or assets.

Therefore, a claimant should analyse enforcement separately from liability.

29. Public Authority Negligence and Limitation

A claimant must also consider limitation periods.

The relevant period can depend upon:

• applicable civil law;
• special legislation;
• type of claim;
• government-claims legislation;
• date of damage;
• date of knowledge;
• contractual/statutory provisions.

Because government claims may be subject to special procedural requirements, limitation should be checked before filing the substantive claim.

30. Public Authority Negligence and Administrative Law

A major UAE legal distinction is between:

Administrative legality

Was the government decision lawful?

and

Civil liability

Did the government conduct cause legally recoverable damage?

A decision may be challenged administratively without automatically producing a damages claim.

Conversely, a civil claim may depend on proving a separate actionable wrong.

Therefore:

Invalid administrative action and civil negligence are related but distinct legal questions.

31. Public Authority Negligence and Public Interest

Public authorities often make decisions affecting:

• public safety;
• infrastructure;
• health;
• transport;
• environment;
• financial regulation;
• licensing.

Courts must therefore balance individual rights with the statutory purpose of the authority.

But public interest does not mean that every government action is immune from judicial scrutiny.

The correct approach is to identify:

1. the statutory power;
2. the statutory duty;
3. the nature of the alleged negligence;
4. the claimant's protected interest;
5. causation;
6. available remedy.

32. Negligent Omission

Public-authority claims frequently concern omissions rather than positive acts.

Examples:

• failure to repair;
• failure to inspect;
• failure to warn;
• failure to monitor;
• failure to intervene.

An omission is not automatically negligent merely because harm occurred.

The claimant should establish why the authority had a legal duty to act in the particular circumstances.

This is especially important where the authority possesses broad discretionary powers rather than a specific mandatory obligation.

33. Public Authority Negligence in Digital Government

Modern UAE government services increasingly rely on:

• digital identity;
• automated licensing;
• AI-assisted systems;
• online permits;
• automated payments;
• government databases;
• electronic applications.

This creates new negligence questions.

For example:

An automated government system incorrectly rejects a licence application.

Potential issues include:

• software defect;
• incorrect data;
• algorithmic error;
• inadequate human review;
• cybersecurity breach;
• failure to provide an appeal mechanism;
• causation of economic loss.

The claimant would still need to establish the ordinary elements of actionable liability.

34. AI and Public Authority Negligence

Suppose a public authority uses an AI system to assess applications.

The system wrongly classifies an applicant.

Potential liability questions include:

• Who designed the system?
• Who authorised deployment?
• Was the authority legally entitled to use the system?
• Was the data accurate?
• Was human review available?
• Was the decision explainable where required?
• Did the authority have an obligation to verify the output?
• Did the error cause legally recoverable damage?

The important principle is:

Delegating a governmental function to software does not necessarily eliminate the authority's legal responsibility for the way the function is performed.

35. Public Authority Negligence and Proportionality

The remedy should correspond to the proven loss.

For example:

A regulatory delay causes AED 50,000 of proven loss.

A claimant cannot automatically demand AED 10 million merely because the defendant is a government authority.

The claimant must prove:

Duty → Breach → Causation → Damage → Amount

This connects public-authority negligence with the proportionality principle.

36. Public Authority Negligence and Economic Loss

Pure economic loss presents special difficulties.

Examples:

• business opportunity lost;
• expected profits lost;
• investment loss;
• delayed commercial project;
• reduced market value.

The claimant generally needs more than proof that the authority's conduct was imperfect.

The claimant must establish:

• actionable duty;
• breach;
• legally recoverable loss;
• causation;
• sufficient proof.

Punjab National Bank v NMC and Faizal Babu Moorkath are useful DIFC authorities on these requirements.

37. Defences Available to a Public Authority

Depending on the applicable law, an authority may argue:

1. No duty

The authority did not owe the claimant a private-law duty.

2. No breach

The authority exercised reasonable care.

3. Statutory authority

The conduct was authorised by legislation.

4. No causation

Another event caused the loss.

5. Contributory conduct

The claimant contributed to the damage.

6. No actionable loss

The claimant suffered no legally recoverable damage.

7. Wrong defendant

The relevant conduct belongs to another legal entity.

8. Limitation

The claim was brought too late.

9. Procedural non-compliance

Required government-claims procedures were not followed.

38. Remedies

Depending upon the legal basis, a claimant may seek:

• compensatory damages;
• restitution;
• declaratory relief;
• correction of records;
• specific performance where legally available;
• injunction;
• interest;
• costs;
• other statutory remedies.

However, the available remedy depends upon:

• applicable legislation;
• jurisdiction;
• nature of the public function;
• type of loss;
• procedural rules.

39. Practical Example

Suppose a government authority is responsible for maintaining a public bridge.

The authority receives repeated technical reports showing serious structural deterioration.

It fails to take reasonable action.

A section collapses and damages a privately owned vehicle.

The claimant would need to establish:

Step 1

The authority was legally responsible for the bridge.

Step 2

The danger was reasonably foreseeable.

Step 3

The authority failed to take the required precautions.

Step 4

The failure caused the collapse.

Step 5

The collapse caused the vehicle damage.

Step 6

The repair/replacement costs are proven.

Step 7

No intervening event breaks the causal chain.

The case could then potentially support a civil negligence claim, subject to the applicable UAE law and procedural regime.

40. Another Example — Negligent Licensing

A government authority incorrectly processes a licence application.

The applicant claims:

“The delay caused my company to lose AED 5 million.”

The claimant would need to prove considerably more than delay.

The court may ask:

• Was there a legal duty to decide within a particular period?
• Was the delay unreasonable?
• Was the delay actually caused by the authority?
• Would the licence definitely have been granted?
• Did other commercial factors contribute to the loss?
• Was the AED 5 million loss foreseeable?
• Is the claimed profit sufficiently proved?

This demonstrates why public-authority negligence claims can become technically difficult.

41. Case-Law Summary

42. Important Exam Distinctions

Public authority negligence vs administrative error

An administrative error is not automatically a negligence claim.

Public authority negligence vs judicial review

Judicial review examines legality of governmental action; negligence focuses on civil responsibility and damage.

Public authority vs State

A statutory public authority may have a separate legal personality.

Public authority vs government-owned company

Government ownership does not automatically make every company a government department.

Regulatory duty vs private duty

A regulator's statutory responsibility does not necessarily create a private damages duty toward every person affected.

Wrongful conduct vs actionable loss

A mistake without legally recognised damage may not produce a damages claim.

43. One-Minute Revision

Public Authority Negligence in UAE

Definition

Civil liability arising from a public authority's legally actionable failure to exercise the required care, resulting in proven loss.

Core formula

Public Authority → Duty → Standard of Care → Breach → Causation → Actionable Damage → Attribution → Remedy

Key issues

1. Identify the correct public entity.
2. Determine the applicable federal/Emirate legislation.
3. Check special government-claims procedures.
4. Establish duty.
5. Establish breach.
6. Prove causation.
7. Prove actionable loss.
8. Consider contributory conduct.
9. Check limitation and immunity issues.
10. Determine the appropriate remedy.

Key cases

• Shihab Khalil — duty + breach + loss.
• Haya Spa — causation and intervening events.
• Gate Mena — foreseeability/proximity/standard of care.
• PNB v NMC — economic loss.
• Faizal Babu Moorkath — actionable damage.
• Ludiala — proof of causation.
• Al Khorafi — assumption of responsibility/entity attribution.
• FAL Oil v SEWA — separate public-authority legal personality.
• Korek Telecom — public-authority conduct and private actionable loss.

Conclusion

UAE public-authority negligence is best understood as a specialised civil-liability problem operating at the intersection of tort principles, public law, government-claims legislation and procedural rules. A claimant cannot succeed merely by showing that a government decision or service was imperfect. The claimant must identify the legally responsible authority, establish the applicable duty and standard, prove breach, establish a causal connection and demonstrate actionable damage.

For Dubai Government entities, the procedural position is particularly important under Dubai Law No. 16 of 2025, which requires the prescribed complaint process before a substantive claim is commenced.

The central principle can therefore be remembered as:

Public power does not automatically create civil liability, but public status does not automatically eliminate civil responsibility either. Liability depends upon duty, breach, causation, actionable damage, attribution and the applicable statutory and procedural framework.

Note: The DIFC cases above are used because they provide published UAE judicial treatment of negligence, public authorities, causation and government-entity status. They are not automatically binding precedents for onshore UAE courts.