CIVIL LAW AND UAE – RESTORATIVE JUSTICE INTEGRATION INTO CIVIL LAW

1. Introduction

Restorative justice traditionally focuses on repairing the harm caused by a legal wrong, rather than concentrating exclusively on punishment or monetary compensation.

In the civil-law context, restorative justice can involve:

restoring property;

returning money;

repairing contractual relationships;

compensating actual loss;

correcting wrongful conduct;

apologising or acknowledging harm;

negotiating future performance;

preserving commercial or family relationships;

resolving disputes through mediation and conciliation; and

allowing affected parties to participate in designing the remedy.

In the UAE, restorative justice is not established as a single, expressly named doctrine of the Civil Transactions Law. Instead, its principles can be integrated through restitution, compensation, good faith, settlement, mediation, conciliation, judicial case management and alternative dispute resolution.

This is particularly significant after the UAE's new Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the Civil Transactions Law, which came into force on 1 June 2026, together with the continuing operation of the UAE's mediation and conciliation framework.

2. Meaning of Restorative Justice in Civil Law

Restorative justice in civil law may be defined as:

A legal approach that seeks to repair the consequences of a civil wrong by restoring the affected person's position, addressing the harm suffered, involving the parties in resolution, and, where appropriate, preserving relationships rather than treating litigation merely as a mechanism for declaring a winner and loser.

The central idea is:

Wrong → Harm → Participation → Repair → Restoration → Future relationship

This differs from a purely adversarial model:

Claim → Defence → Judgment → Enforcement

The restorative approach does not eliminate judicial adjudication. Instead, it supplements adjudication with mechanisms capable of producing more complete forms of repair.

3. Restorative Justice and UAE Civil Law

UAE civil law contains several doctrines that can support restorative justice.

Important foundations include:

Restitution

Compensation

Specific performance

Restoration of the previous state of affairs

Unjust enrichment

Recovery of undue payments

Good faith

Mediation

Conciliation

Settlement

Judicial referral to ADR

Protection of continuing relationships

Therefore, restorative justice in UAE civil law is best understood as a cross-cutting remedial and procedural philosophy, rather than a single statutory cause of action.

4. Statutory Framework

A. New UAE Civil Transactions Law

Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 introduced the current Civil Transactions Law, effective from 1 June 2026.

The modern framework continues to recognise principles relevant to restoration.

For example, the provisions concerning unjust enrichment establish that a person should not retain another person's property without lawful justification.

The new framework therefore supports the restorative proposition that:

A benefit obtained without sufficient legal basis may have to be returned.

Similarly, the rules concerning undue performance provide a legal mechanism for recovery where a person has received something that was not legally due.

Thus:

Restorative justice → restoration of unjust benefit

rather than merely:

Restorative justice → payment of damages.

5. Mediation and Conciliation Law

A major institutional foundation is Federal Decree-Law No. 40 of 2023 on Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes.

The legislation provides a structured framework for mediation and conciliation in civil and commercial disputes.

Its importance for restorative justice is substantial because mediation can permit parties to develop solutions that a court judgment may not ordinarily impose.

For example, parties may agree to:

repayment by instalments;

replacement of defective goods;

completion of delayed contractual work;

modification of contractual obligations;

future cooperation;

confidentiality;

withdrawal of claims;

correction of records;

return of property;

compensation;

waiver of certain claims; or

continued commercial cooperation.

This is closer to a restorative model because the parties participate in designing the remedy.

6. Civil Procedure Framework

Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022, the UAE Civil Procedure Code, provides the procedural environment within which civil disputes can be managed and resolved.

Civil procedure is not limited to issuing judgments.

Modern civil justice increasingly involves:

settlement;

mediation;

case management;

negotiated resolution;

electronic proceedings;

judicial supervision;

enforcement;

procedural proportionality.

Consequently, restorative justice can operate inside the litigation system without replacing the courts.

7. Core Elements of Restorative Justice in UAE Civil Law

A. Restoration of the Previous Position

One of the strongest restorative concepts is restoration of the status quo ante.

The objective is:

Put the injured party, as far as legally possible, into the position that existed before the wrongful transaction or event.

Examples include:

returning money;

returning property;

cancelling an invalid transaction;

restoring possession;

reversing an unjust transfer.

This is closely connected with restitution.

8. Restitution as a Restorative Remedy

Restitution is one of the clearest civil-law manifestations of restorative justice.

If A receives AED 1 million without legal justification from B, a damages-only approach might ask:

What loss did B suffer?

A restitutionary approach additionally asks:

What benefit did A receive, and should A be permitted to retain it?

The remedy can therefore involve:

return of the original property;

return of equivalent property;

payment of value;

repayment of undue payment;

recovery of benefits or accretions where legally applicable.

The current Civil Transactions Law's unjust-enrichment and undue-receipt provisions are particularly relevant here.

9. Compensation as Restorative Justice

Compensation also has restorative characteristics.

Civil compensation may address:

Material harm

property loss;

financial loss;

repair costs;

business losses;

medical expenses where legally recoverable.

Moral harm

distress;

injury to reputation;

emotional suffering;

other legally recognised non-economic harm.

The objective is not necessarily to punish the defendant.

Instead, compensation attempts to repair the legally recognised consequences of the wrong.

10. Specific Performance and Restoration

Restorative justice may also favour performance rather than money.

Suppose a contractor wrongfully refuses to complete a project.

A purely monetary remedy might award damages.

A restorative solution may instead involve:

completion of the project;

correction of defective work;

replacement of defective materials;

performance of the promised obligation.

This can be particularly important in:

construction;

real estate;

technology contracts;

long-term supply agreements;

infrastructure projects.

11. Mediation as the Procedural Form of Restorative Justice

Mediation is perhaps the strongest procedural mechanism for integrating restorative principles into UAE civil justice.

The mediator does not ordinarily determine who wins.

Instead, the mediator assists the parties in reaching an agreed solution.

This permits discussion of issues that may extend beyond the strict legal claim.

For example:

Litigation approach

Tenant claims AED 100,000.

Landlord disputes liability.

Court awards or rejects the claim.

Restorative mediation approach

The parties might agree:

partial payment;

repair of premises;

revised lease terms;

repayment schedule;

withdrawal of counterclaims;

future cooperation.

The second structure can address both past harm and future relationships.

12. Preservation of Relationships

A major restorative feature is preservation of relationships.

This is especially important where the parties have continuing relationships.

Examples:

landlord and tenant;

employer and employee;

shareholders;

family members;

business partners;

franchisor and franchisee;

contractor and employer;

banks and customers;

suppliers and distributors.

The DIFC Courts' ADR framework expressly recognises that mediation can preserve commercial relationships and market reputation.

Therefore, restorative justice has particular practical relevance to commercial civil disputes.

13. Participation of the Parties

Traditional adjudication gives the judge primary authority to determine the remedy.

Restorative processes give greater importance to party participation.

The parties can identify:

the real source of the dispute;

practical consequences;

future risks;

relationship concerns;

acceptable compensation;

appropriate corrective measures.

This produces a more flexible remedial structure.

14. Confidentiality

Confidentiality is another important restorative characteristic.

Parties may be more willing to acknowledge mistakes or explore compromise if settlement discussions are protected from ordinary use in later proceedings.

DIFC mediation practice expressly protects the confidentiality of mediation communications and generally restricts their use as evidence.

This encourages candid settlement discussions.

15. Restorative Justice Versus Retributive Justice

Civil litigation, however, is not necessarily purely retributive. Courts can provide restorative remedies even within adversarial proceedings.

16. Restorative Justice and Good Faith

Good faith provides an important conceptual connection.

Parties to civil relationships are expected to perform contractual and legal obligations in accordance with applicable legal standards.

A restorative system therefore encourages:

honest communication;

reasonable cooperation;

prevention of unnecessary escalation;

correction of mistakes;

mitigation of harm;

genuine settlement efforts.

Good faith is particularly important in long-term contracts where immediate termination and litigation may produce greater losses for everyone.

17. Restorative Justice and Unjust Enrichment

Unjust enrichment is strongly compatible with restorative theory.

The question is not merely:

Did the defendant commit a conventional tort?

It may instead be:

Has the defendant obtained a benefit that the law does not permit the defendant to retain?

The remedy can therefore restore the balance between the parties.

Formula:

Unjust benefit → Legal absence of justification → Restoration

This differs from compensation:

Wrong → Loss → Damages

18. Restorative Justice and Contractual Disputes

Contractual disputes provide a particularly suitable field for restorative justice.

Possible restorative remedies include:

performance;

repair;

replacement;

repayment;

price adjustment;

restitution following termination;

renegotiated performance;

structured settlement.

This is especially valuable where termination of the relationship would cause significant economic consequences.

19. Restorative Justice in Family Civil Disputes

Family disputes demonstrate the importance of restoration beyond money.

A dispute may involve:

property;

loans between relatives;

inheritance;

family businesses;

matrimonial property;

obligations between family members.

The DIFC case Mahesh Srichand Tourani v Dusty Tourani & Duzty LLC [2018] DIFC CFI is particularly illustrative.

The Court recognised the possibility of a global settlement in a family dispute and encouraged mediation involving the wider relationship between the parties.

The case demonstrates that mediation may address multiple interconnected disputes rather than merely the individual cause of action before the court.

20. Restorative Justice and Commercial Relationships

Commercial disputes frequently involve continuing relationships.

A court judgment may establish liability but leave the parties unable to cooperate.

Mediation can instead address:

payment;

delivery;

performance;

future contractual arrangements;

confidentiality;

termination;

release;

continuation of business.

This is why DIFC Courts' rules expressly encourage ADR.

21. Case Law

Case 1: Mahesh Srichand Tourani v Dusty Tourani & Duzty LLC [2018] DIFC CFI

Principle

The dispute involved a family relationship and multiple interconnected claims.

The Court encouraged mediation and considered the possibility of a global settlement.

The judgment discussed advantages of mediation including:

confidentiality;

finality;

compromise;

preservation of relationships.

Restorative significance

The case demonstrates that civil justice can seek to repair an underlying relationship rather than simply decide one monetary claim.

22. Case 2: Alexandra Wilson v Simmons & Simmons Middle East LLP & Another [2020] DIFC CFI 029

The DIFC Court directed the parties toward judicial mediation.

The mediation framework included:

good-faith participation;

confidentiality;

participation of representatives and legal advisers;

written settlement requirements;

protection of mediation communications.

Restorative significance

The case demonstrates institutional integration of mediation into ordinary litigation.

Restorative justice therefore operates as a complement to adjudication rather than an alternative completely detached from the court system.

23. Case 3: Alawwal Capital JSC v Rasmala Investment Bank Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 038

The parties agreed to mediation and the DIFC Court stayed the proceedings to allow the mediation process to take place.

The proceedings could resume if mediation failed or could end following settlement.

Restorative significance

This illustrates a procedural model:

Litigation → Mediation → Settlement or return to litigation

The court therefore functions as a platform supporting negotiated restoration while preserving adjudication as a fallback.

24. Case 4: Sam Precious Metals FZ-LLC & Others v Snyder Prime Limited & Others [2023] DIFC CFI 030

The DIFC Court directed the parties to take serious steps toward resolving their disputes through mediation.

The parties were required to report on the steps undertaken and explain why mediation had failed if no settlement was reached.

Restorative significance

The case demonstrates that mediation may be integrated into case management.

The restorative process is therefore not necessarily detached from judicial procedure.

25. Case 5: Hopkins Architects Dubai Ltd v Dubai Properties LLC [2010] DIFC CFI 034/2009

The Court ordered a stay of proceedings so that the parties could explore Justice by Reconciliation through mediation.

The order contemplated:

selection of a neutral;

good-faith settlement efforts;

reporting to the Court if settlement failed;

continuation of litigation if reconciliation was unsuccessful.

Restorative significance

The case is historically important because it demonstrates the DIFC Courts' development of a formal reconciliation-oriented approach within civil litigation.

It closely reflects the restorative concept of attempting to repair the dispute before proceeding to full adjudication.

26. Case 6: Aziz Kurtha v Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP & Others [2009] DIFC CFI 004/2008

The DIFC Court issued a Justice by Reconciliation (JBR) order requiring the parties to take serious steps toward settlement through mediation.

Restorative significance

The case demonstrates an early institutional recognition that civil justice should not necessarily proceed immediately toward trial where reconciliation is reasonably possible.

The court retained adjudicative authority while creating space for consensual resolution.

27. Case 7: Gjurd v Gizella (DIFC) Limited [2016] DIFC SCT 081

This case concerned a financial investment dispute.

The Court concluded that the underlying contract was void because of mistake and applied restitution as the appropriate remedy.

The claimant was restored financially through repayment of the investment, adjusted for amounts already received.

Restorative significance

The case demonstrates the substantive side of restorative justice:

Where a transaction is legally defective, restoration can return the parties toward their pre-transaction position.

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

The Court considered Article 90 of the DIFC Contract Law concerning restitution after termination.

The claimants were entitled to restitution of sums they had paid.

Restorative significance

The case demonstrates that restoration can operate as a formal judicial remedy.

It shows that restorative justice is not limited to voluntary mediation.

A court may itself provide a restorative remedy when the applicable law requires restitution.

29. Case 9: Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & Others [2019] DIFC CFI 054

Larmag involved extensive restitutionary claims under provisions of the former UAE Civil Code concerning unjust enrichment and restoration.

The case considered claims for:

actual restitution;

money in lieu of property;

benefits and proceeds associated with property.

Restorative significance

It demonstrates that UAE civil law has substantive mechanisms capable of restoring property or value where the legal requirements for restitution are established.

It also illustrates the important distinction between restoration and ordinary compensatory damages.

30. Case Law Table

31. Restorative Justice and the Concept of "Repair"

A central distinction is:

Compensation

Attempts to place the claimant financially in the position required by law.

Restitution

Attempts to return an unjustly obtained benefit or restore a prior position.

Restorative justice

May encompass both, but can go further by addressing:

relationship;

participation;

apology;

future conduct;

negotiated performance;

reconciliation;

prevention of recurrence.

Thus:

Restorative justice is broader than restitution.

32. Restorative Justice and Reconciliation

Reconciliation is particularly important where the dispute arises from a continuing relationship.

Examples:

Employer–employee

Instead of only damages:

unpaid wages can be paid;

employment records can be corrected;

parties may agree on separation terms.

Landlord–tenant

Instead of immediate eviction:

arrears can be rescheduled;

repairs can be completed;

tenancy can continue.

Shareholders

Instead of litigation alone:

governance arrangements can be modified;

buy-out mechanisms can be agreed;

future voting arrangements can be established.

Commercial partners

Instead of termination:

defective performance can be corrected;

payment schedules can be revised;

future obligations can be clarified.

33. Restorative Justice and Digital Civil Justice

Digitalisation can make restorative mechanisms more accessible.

Potential applications include:

online mediation;

virtual settlement conferences;

electronic settlement agreements;

digital document exchange;

automated scheduling;

online payment arrangements;

electronic enforcement.

However, technology should facilitate human settlement rather than replace meaningful participation.

An automated settlement recommendation should not become a substitute for:

consent;

legal advice;

procedural fairness;

confidentiality;

human judgment where required.

34. Artificial Intelligence and Restorative Justice

AI can potentially assist restorative processes through:

identifying disputed issues;

summarising documents;

calculating financial consequences;

suggesting settlement ranges;

identifying inconsistencies;

translating communications;

scheduling mediation;

generating draft settlement terms.

However, significant safeguards are necessary.

AI should not independently determine:

whether a victim has been adequately restored;

whether an apology is genuine;

whether settlement is voluntary;

whether one party is being pressured;

whether a vulnerable party understands the settlement.

Therefore:

AI may assist restorative justice, but human agency should remain central.

35. Restorative Justice and Access to Justice

Restorative processes may improve access to justice because they can reduce:

litigation duration;

procedural complexity;

legal costs;

business disruption.

However, mediation is not automatically appropriate for every dispute.

It may be inappropriate where:

there is coercion;

one party lacks meaningful bargaining power;

urgent judicial protection is required;

a binding legal precedent is necessary;

public rights are involved;

fraud or serious misconduct requires formal adjudication;

a party cannot give informed consent.

Therefore, restorative justice must operate within legal safeguards.

36. Voluntary and Court-Directed Mediation

An important distinction exists.

Voluntary mediation

The parties independently agree to mediation.

Court-referred mediation

The court directs or encourages the parties to attempt mediation under the applicable procedural framework.

The DIFC Courts' mediation practice illustrates both forms.

The important principle is that a referral to mediation does not necessarily eliminate judicial determination.

If mediation fails:

The case returns to adjudication.

37. Restorative Justice and Enforcement

A settlement has limited practical value if it cannot be enforced.

Therefore, effective restorative justice requires:

clear settlement terms;

written agreement;

authority of representatives;

legally valid obligations;

appropriate court recognition where necessary;

enforceability;

mechanisms for non-compliance.

The DIFC mediation framework, for example, treats a written and properly signed settlement as an important element of binding settlement arrangements.

38. Restorative Justice and Public Policy

Restorative settlement cannot be used to defeat mandatory law.

Parties cannot simply agree to:

violate statutory rights;

evade mandatory regulatory obligations;

defeat public policy;

commit fraud;

undermine court jurisdiction;

deprive protected parties of mandatory protections.

Therefore:

Party autonomy operates within mandatory legal boundaries.

39. Challenges in Integrating Restorative Justice

1. Power imbalance

A stronger party may pressure a weaker party into accepting an inadequate settlement.

2. Lack of precedent

Confidential settlements do not necessarily establish publicly accessible legal principles.

3. Enforcement problems

A settlement may be ineffective if obligations are vague.

4. Multiple parties

Restorative processes become more complicated when numerous claimants, defendants, insurers and stakeholders are involved.

5. Serious wrongdoing

Some disputes require authoritative judicial findings rather than private compromise.

6. Cross-border disputes

Different legal systems may apply different standards to settlement and enforcement.

7. Digital disputes

AI-generated evidence and automated systems can complicate questions of responsibility and restoration.

40. UAE Model of Integrated Restorative Civil Justice

The emerging UAE model can be represented as follows:

Civil Wrong

↓

Identification of Harm

↓

Judicial or ADR Assessment

↓

Mediation / Conciliation Where Appropriate

↓

Restoration / Compensation / Performance

↓

Settlement

↓

Enforcement

↓

Relationship Repair and Future Compliance

If settlement fails:

Mediation → Adjudication → Judgment → Enforcement

Thus restorative justice does not replace civil justice.

It becomes an additional layer within civil justice.

41. Restorative Justice vs Restitution

42. Restorative Justice vs Compensation

Compensation asks:

What legally recognised loss has the claimant suffered?

Restitution asks:

What benefit or property should be restored?

Restorative justice asks:

How can the harm and dispute be repaired in a legally fair and sustainable manner?

These concepts may operate simultaneously.

43. Restorative Justice in UAE Civil-Law Practice

A practical restorative settlement could therefore contain:

Monetary element

AED 500,000 repayment.

Property element

Return of documents or assets.

Performance element

Completion of contractual work.

Corrective element

Correction of defective records.

Relationship element

Continuation of commercial cooperation.

Future element

Revised contractual obligations.

Procedural element

Withdrawal of litigation.

This illustrates why restorative justice is broader than simply awarding damages.

44. Important Legal Principles

Principle 1

Restorative justice is not presently a single independent cause of action under UAE civil law.

Principle 2

Its principles can be implemented through existing doctrines and institutions.

Principle 3

Restitution is one of its strongest substantive manifestations.

Principle 4

Mediation and conciliation are its strongest procedural mechanisms.

Principle 5

Settlement permits parties to design remedies that a court might not otherwise impose.

Principle 6

Restorative mechanisms must remain consistent with mandatory law and public policy.

Principle 7

A valid settlement requires meaningful consent and legal enforceability.

Principle 8

Judicial adjudication remains essential where settlement is unsuitable or unsuccessful.

45. Conclusion

The integration of restorative justice into UAE civil law is best understood as the development of a multi-layered civil-justice system in which adjudication, restitution, compensation, mediation, conciliation and settlement operate together.

The UAE's modern mediation framework, the current Civil Transactions Law, the Civil Procedure Code and the experience of the DIFC Courts demonstrate that civil justice is not limited to determining liability.

It can also seek to:

restore property;

repay undue benefits;

compensate legally recognised harm;

correct defective performance;

preserve relationships;

encourage reconciliation;

reduce unnecessary litigation;

permit party-designed solutions; and

create enforceable settlements.

The central concept can therefore be expressed as:

Civil justice → identify harm → determine legal responsibility → restore what can be restored → compensate what cannot be restored → reconcile where appropriate → enforce the solution.

In UAE civil law, restorative justice should consequently be viewed as an integrating philosophy connecting substantive remedies with mediation and reconciliation, rather than as a separate replacement for ordinary civil litigation.

Quick Revision Points

Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm.

It is broader than restitution.

UAE law does not presently treat it as one independent civil cause of action.

Restitution is a major substantive restorative remedy.

Mediation and conciliation are major procedural mechanisms.

Federal Decree-Law No. 40 of 2023 provides the modern federal mediation and conciliation framework.

Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 is the current Civil Transactions Law from 1 June 2026.

Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 provides the modern Civil Procedure Code framework.

DIFC Courts have long integrated mediation and Justice by Reconciliation into case management.

Restorative justice may preserve commercial and family relationships.

Settlement must remain consistent with mandatory law and public policy.

Failed mediation does not eliminate the right to judicial adjudication.

AI may support restorative processes but should not replace meaningful human participation.

The ultimate objective is repair, restoration, fairness and sustainable resolution.

Key cases to remember

Aziz Kurtha v Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP & Others [2009] DIFC CFI 004/2008 – Justice by Reconciliation.

Hopkins Architects Dubai Ltd v Dubai Properties LLC [2010] DIFC CFI 034/2009 – mediation and reconciliation during proceedings.

Amit Dattani & Others v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited [2012] DIFC CFI 034 – contractual restitution.

Mahesh Srichand Tourani v Dusty Tourani & Duzty LLC [2018] DIFC CFI – mediation and preservation of relationships.

Alexandra Wilson v Simmons & Simmons Middle East LLP & Another [2020] DIFC CFI 029 – judicial mediation and confidentiality.

Alawwal Capital JSC v Rasmala Investment Bank Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 038 – stay of proceedings for mediation.

Sam Precious Metals FZ-LLC v Snyder Prime Limited [2023] DIFC CFI 030 – judicially encouraged mediation.

Gjurd v Gizella (DIFC) Limited [2016] DIFC SCT 081 – restitution following mistake.

Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & Others [2019] DIFC CFI 054 – restitution and unjust enrichment.