Civil Law and UAE: Restorative Justice Models in Civil Disputes

1. Introduction

Restorative justice in civil disputes refers to approaches that seek to repair the consequences of a dispute rather than focusing exclusively on declaring one party the winner and the other party the loser.

In a civil-law environment such as the UAE, restorative justice can be understood through mechanisms including:

• mediation;
• conciliation;
• negotiated settlement;
• restitution;
• repair or replacement;
• compensation;
• apology or acknowledgment;
• continuation or restructuring of commercial relationships;
• community or relationship-based dispute resolution;
• judicial settlement;
• and technologically assisted dispute resolution.

The UAE's modern dispute-resolution framework increasingly accommodates these approaches. Federal Decree-Law No. 40 of 2023 on Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes provides the principal federal framework for mediation and conciliation.

Restorative justice should not, however, be confused with criminal restorative justice. In the UAE civil context, the emphasis is generally on repairing civil harm, restoring relationships, resolving disputes consensually, and producing enforceable outcomes.

2. Meaning of Restorative Justice in Civil Law

Traditional litigation generally asks:

Who is legally right?

A restorative model asks additional questions:

What harm occurred?

Who was affected?

What can be done to repair the harm?

Can the relationship be preserved?

What settlement would address the parties' actual interests?

Thus, restorative justice expands the remedial perspective.

Traditional model

Dispute → pleadings → judgment → winner/loser

Restorative model

Dispute → harm identification → dialogue/negotiation → repair → settlement → continuing relationship

The two systems can coexist.

3. UAE Legal Foundation

Several components of UAE law support restorative dispute resolution.

A. Federal Mediation and Conciliation Law

Federal Decree-Law No. 40 of 2023 regulates mediation and conciliation in civil and commercial disputes.

It replaced earlier federal mediation legislation and establishes a more integrated framework for:

• mediation;
• conciliation;
• mediators;
• mediation agreements;
• settlement procedures;
• confidentiality;
• and enforcement of settlements.

This demonstrates that the UAE legal system does not regard litigation as the only legitimate method of resolving civil disputes.

4. Restorative Justice and Civil-Law Philosophy

Civil law traditionally emphasizes:

• good faith;
• contractual stability;
• compensation;
• restitution;
• prevention of unjust enrichment;
• judicial settlement;
• and restoration of legal relationships.

Restorative justice fits naturally with these principles.

For example, if a contractor damages a commercial relationship through defective performance, the parties may prefer:

• correction of defective work;
• extension of time;
• price adjustment;
• payment of reasonable compensation;
• and continuation of the contract

rather than immediate termination and litigation.

5. Main Restorative Justice Models in UAE Civil Disputes

Model 1 — Mediation

A neutral third party helps the parties negotiate a voluntary settlement.

The mediator normally does not impose a judgment.

Example

A landlord and tenant disagree about repair costs.

Instead of litigating:

• landlord agrees to undertake repairs;
• tenant pays undisputed rent;
• disputed rent is adjusted;
• lease continues.

The result repairs both the economic dispute and the commercial relationship.

6. Model 2 — Conciliation

Conciliation is closely related to mediation but may involve a more active role by the conciliator in facilitating or proposing settlement solutions, depending on the applicable framework and procedure.

The objective remains:

Resolution by agreement rather than imposed adjudication.

This can be particularly useful in:

• family property disputes;
• commercial relationships;
• construction disputes;
• landlord-tenant matters;
• shareholder disputes;
• professional negligence;
• and consumer disputes.

7. Model 3 — Restitution

Restitution is itself a restorative remedy.

Under the current Civil Transactions Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, Article 237 provides that when a contract is rescinded or terminated, the parties should be restored to the position they occupied before the contract.

Thus:

Contract fails → benefits returned → pre-contractual position restored.

Restitution is therefore the clearest example of restorative justice through a judicial remedy.

8. Model 4 — Compensation Plus Repair

A restorative settlement does not necessarily mean that money alone is paid.

A settlement may combine:

• monetary compensation;
• repair;
• replacement;
• apology;
• correction of records;
• future contractual safeguards;
• revised procedures.

Example

A professional service provider makes an error causing a client loss.

A settlement could provide:

1. partial financial compensation;
2. correction of the defective work;
3. reimbursement of expenses;
4. revised quality-control procedures;
5. continuation of the relationship.

This goes beyond simply awarding damages.

9. Model 5 — Relationship Preservation

The DIFC Courts expressly recognize preservation of commercial relationships as one of the advantages of alternative dispute resolution.

DIFC Rules Part 27 state that ADR can enable parties to settle disputes while preserving existing commercial relationships and market reputation, while also saving litigation costs and judicial resources.

This is an important restorative concept.

A judgment may determine who wins.

A settlement may allow both parties to continue doing business.

10. Model 6 — Judicial Mediation

Restorative justice does not necessarily require the parties to avoid the courts completely.

A court may refer a dispute to mediation.

The DIFC Courts' Practice Guidance Note No. 1 of 2021 recognizes the Court's power to refer appropriate cases to mediation, including on the Court's own initiative. The proceedings may be stayed during the mediation process.

This produces a hybrid model:

Judicial proceedings + mediation + possible settlement

11. Model 7 — Digital Restorative Justice

The UAE's increasingly digital dispute-resolution infrastructure allows mediation and settlement processes to occur electronically.

This can involve:

• remote mediation;
• electronic documents;
• video conferences;
• electronic settlement agreements;
• online communication;
• digital evidence.

This is especially important where parties are:

• in different emirates;
• overseas;
• corporate entities;
• or engaged in international transactions.

12. Model 8 — Commercial Relationship Restructuring

A restorative settlement can modify the future relationship.

For example:

Construction dispute

Instead of:

Employer terminates contractor.

The settlement may provide:

• revised completion schedule;
• new milestones;
• reduced price;
• additional supervision;
• liquidated damages waiver;
• payment plan.

The dispute is therefore transformed into a restructured relationship.

13. Model 9 — Community and Family-Oriented Settlement

Restorative principles are especially relevant where the dispute involves continuing personal relationships.

Examples include:

• inheritance;
• family property;
• co-ownership;
• neighbourhood disputes;
• small businesses;
• partnership disputes.

A purely adversarial judgment may resolve the legal issue while leaving the underlying relationship damaged.

Mediation can instead allow parties to negotiate a solution that preserves future interaction.

14. Model 10 — Settlement as Enforceable Resolution

Restorative justice does not mean an informal or legally weak agreement.

A successful mediation can produce a formal settlement capable of enforcement under the applicable UAE framework.

The DIFC's current mediation framework provides an especially clear example: mediation settlement agreements can operate as enforcement instruments under the relevant DIFC framework, subject to its requirements.

Thus:

Voluntary settlement can ultimately produce legally enforceable obligations.

15. At Least 6 Case Laws and Authorities

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

This is a particularly important UAE example of judicial encouragement of mediation.

Justice Ali Al Madhani explained that the Court encouraged the parties to attempt mediation before continuing with the litigation.

The Court recognized advantages including:

• confidentiality;
• final settlement;
• reduced conflict;
• preservation of relationships;
• and the possibility that each party could obtain some of its objectives.

The parties actually participated in mediation, although it ultimately failed and the litigation continued.

Restorative principle

A court can facilitate restoration without surrendering its adjudicative function.

Importance

This demonstrates the court-connected mediation model.

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

The DIFC Court ordered the parties to attend judicial mediation.

The order specified:

• a judicial mediator;
• remote video mediation;
• good-faith participation;
• confidentiality;
• participation of legal representatives;
• authority to settle;
• and protection against using mediation communications as evidence.

The order also provided that any settlement would become legally binding once recorded in writing and signed by authorized representatives.

Restorative principle

Restorative justice requires both:

dialogue + procedural protection.

Importance

The case demonstrates how mediation can be integrated directly into judicial proceedings.

17. Case 3 — Dr Aziz Kurtha v Bin Shabib & Associates [2009] DIFC CFI 004

The DIFC Court issued a Mediation Justice by Reconciliation (JBR) order.

The parties were required to take serious steps to attempt settlement through mediation before continuing with the litigation.

The order also contemplated reporting to the Court if settlement efforts failed.

Restorative principle

The Court can actively encourage parties to explore settlement before the dispute reaches full trial.

Importance

This is an early example of institutionalized restorative/ADR thinking within the DIFC judicial system.

18. Case 4 — Murin v Mola [2022] DIFC SCT 455

The parties had entered into a settlement agreement containing a dispute-resolution mechanism.

The agreement required disputes to proceed through arbitration.

The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal concluded that the parties' settlement agreement and arbitration clause affected the Court's jurisdiction and therefore declined to hear the claim.

Restorative principle

A negotiated settlement can itself become a legally operative framework governing future disputes.

Importance

Restorative justice does not end with the settlement meeting.

The settlement must be respected as a legal instrument.

19. Case 5 — Musob v Makani & Mikin [2023] DIFC SCT 309

The underlying agreement contained a dispute-resolution mechanism requiring:

1. reasonable efforts to negotiate;
2. mediation if negotiations failed;
3. arbitration thereafter.

The DIFC Court examined the parties' contractual dispute-resolution agreement and ultimately concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the claim because the agreed arbitration mechanism governed the dispute.

Restorative principle

Parties can design a multi-stage dispute-resolution system:

Negotiation → Mediation → Arbitration

Importance

This is an important model for commercial restorative justice because mediation becomes part of the contractual architecture rather than an afterthought.

20. Case 6 — Dattani & Others v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited [2012] DIFC CFI 034

This property dispute is useful from a remedial perspective.

The Court addressed termination and restitution following the failure of a property transaction.

The purchasers were entitled to restitution of amounts supplied after valid termination.

Restorative principle

Restitution restores the parties to their pre-contractual position.

Importance

It demonstrates that restorative justice does not always require consensual mediation. Judicial restitution itself can perform a restorative function.

21. Case 7 — Lendro v Mr Lutis [2020] DIFC SCT 166

The case involved a property transaction affected by COVID-era circumstances.

Following valid termination, the Tribunal ordered repayment of the deposit.

Restorative principle

Where a contractual relationship can no longer continue, restoring the parties' financial positions can be an appropriate civil remedy.

Importance

It demonstrates the relationship between:

extraordinary circumstances → termination → restoration.

22. Case 8 — DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited v Youssef Issa Ward [2015] DIFC CA 006

This case demonstrates an important limitation.

The Court of Appeal rejected the restitutionary claim because the claimant had not established the necessary lawful basis for termination.

Restorative principle

Restorative justice cannot mean:

“Every disappointed party receives its money back.”

The legal foundation for the remedy must first be established.

Importance

Restoration must remain connected to legal rights and obligations.

23. Case 9 — Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v DIFC Authority & DIFC Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013

The claimant sought damages and restitutionary relief.

The Court distinguished between:

• loss suffered by the claimant;
• and enrichment received by the defendant.

The restitutionary claim failed because the necessary enrichment was not established.

Restorative principle

Restorative justice cannot become a substitute for proving the appropriate cause of action.

Importance

There must be a legally recognized basis for the proposed restorative remedy.

24. What the Cases Demonstrate

The authorities reveal different restorative models:

25. Restorative Justice vs Traditional Adjudication

Restorative justice does not replace adjudication. It provides an additional pathway.

26. Restorative Justice vs Arbitration

Arbitration and restorative justice are also different.

Arbitration

The tribunal ultimately determines the dispute.

Mediation

The parties themselves decide whether and how to settle.

However, the two can operate sequentially:

Negotiation → Mediation → Arbitration

This is particularly common in sophisticated commercial contracts.

The Musob case illustrates this type of contractual multi-stage dispute-resolution architecture.

27. Restorative Justice and Construction Disputes

Construction is particularly suitable for restorative mechanisms.

Suppose:

• employer alleges delay;
• contractor alleges employer-caused delay;
• engineer has issued conflicting certificates;
• project remains unfinished.

Litigation may take years.

A restorative mediation could produce:

• agreed extension of time;
• revised completion schedule;
• payment of undisputed sums;
• waiver of some claims;
• revised quality requirements;
• independent expert determination;
• continuation of the project.

The objective becomes:

Finish the project and repair the relationship, rather than merely determine historical fault.

28. Restorative Justice in Real Estate

Real estate disputes may involve:

• delayed handover;
• construction defects;
• service charges;
• rent arrears;
• security deposits;
• co-ownership;
• property management.

A restorative settlement can combine:

• repair;
• payment plan;
• rent adjustment;
• possession timetable;
• release of claims;
• future obligations.

This can preserve the underlying property relationship.

29. Restorative Justice in Commercial Partnerships

Consider two shareholders who disagree.

A purely adversarial solution might lead to:

• injunctions;
• litigation;
• buy-out;
• dissolution.

A restorative model may instead create:

• revised governance;
• independent board member;
• revised voting arrangement;
• information rights;
• dividend policy;
• buy-out mechanism;
• dispute-escalation clause.

The objective is to repair the commercial system rather than merely determine historical blame.

30. Restorative Justice in Consumer Disputes

Consumer disputes are particularly suitable for:

• refunds;
• replacement;
• repair;
• service credits;
• apology;
• corrective action.

For example:

A customer receives a defective appliance.

Possible restorative outcome:

1. replacement;
2. refund of delivery charge;
3. repair;
4. service credit.

The solution directly addresses the harm experienced by the consumer.

31. Restorative Justice in Professional Negligence

In professional negligence disputes, parties may have an ongoing relationship.

A settlement may include:

• correction of the work;
• reimbursement;
• professional review;
• revised procedures;
• limited compensation;
• continuation of service.

This can be more practically useful than a judgment that only determines historical liability.

32. Restorative Justice and Good Faith

Restorative systems depend heavily on good faith.

A party cannot meaningfully mediate while:

• concealing critical information;
• deliberately misleading the other side;
• refusing to negotiate;
• using mediation solely to delay proceedings.

Good-faith participation does not mean a party must accept the opponent's demand.

It means the settlement process is approached genuinely.

The Wilson mediation order expressly required the parties to participate in the mediation in good faith.

33. Confidentiality

Confidentiality is essential.

Without confidentiality, parties may fear that:

“If I make a settlement proposal, it will later be used against me in court.”

The DIFC Wilson mediation order protected:

• documents;
• conversations;
• admissions;
• proposals;
• views expressed during mediation.

It also restricted calling the mediator as a witness.

This encourages open negotiation.

34. Voluntariness

A core feature of restorative justice is meaningful participation.

The parties should generally have the ability to decide whether to settle and on what terms.

Even where a court refers parties to mediation, the mediator does not ordinarily impose the substantive settlement.

The distinction is:

Referral to mediation ≠ forced settlement.

The parties retain control over the settlement outcome, subject to applicable statutory requirements.

35. Enforceability

Restorative justice must not sacrifice legal certainty.

A settlement should identify:

• parties;
• obligations;
• payment dates;
• performance requirements;
• consequences of default;
• release provisions;
• jurisdiction;
• dispute-resolution mechanism.

The DIFC's current mediation framework provides for mediation settlement agreements to operate as enforcement instruments subject to the applicable requirements.

Thus:

Restorative justice + enforceability = durable civil resolution.

36. Restorative Justice and Restitution

The two concepts are closely related.

Restorative justice

Broad philosophy of repairing harm and relationships.

Restitution

Specific legal remedy involving restoration of benefits.

Therefore:

Restitution can be one instrument of restorative justice.

But restorative justice is broader.

A mediation settlement might include:

• restitution;
• compensation;
• apology;
• repair;
• future performance.

37. Restorative Justice and Compensation

Compensation asks:

How much money should be paid for the harm?

Restorative justice asks:

What combination of measures would adequately repair the dispute?

A restorative settlement may therefore contain:

Compensation + restitution + repair + future safeguards.

38. Restorative Justice and Relationship Repair

One of the strongest features of mediation is its capacity to preserve relationships.

DIFC Part 27 expressly identifies preservation of existing commercial relationships and market reputation as advantages of ADR.

This matters particularly in:

• joint ventures;
• franchise relationships;
• supply chains;
• construction;
• banking;
• family businesses;
• landlord-tenant relationships.

39. Restorative Justice and Court Efficiency

Restorative processes can also reduce pressure on courts.

DIFC Part 27 identifies:

• cost reduction;
• faster finality;
• preservation of relationships;
• broader settlement solutions;
• and more efficient use of judicial resources

as reasons for encouraging ADR.

Thus restorative justice has both:

private benefits

and

systemic benefits.

40. Digital and Online Mediation

Modern UAE civil justice increasingly supports digital dispute resolution.

A restorative digital model can involve:

1. online filing;
2. digital exchange of documents;
3. virtual mediation;
4. electronic negotiation;
5. electronic signature;
6. enforceable settlement.

The Wilson case provides a practical example of remote judicial mediation conducted through a court-provided video link.

41. AI and Restorative Civil Justice

AI can potentially assist restorative systems through:

• identifying common issues;
• organizing evidence;
• translating documents;
• summarizing claims;
• scheduling mediation;
• identifying settlement ranges;
• generating draft settlement terms;
• monitoring compliance.

However, AI should generally support rather than replace:

• informed consent;
• legal advice;
• mediator neutrality;
• confidentiality;
• human decision-making;
• and judicial oversight where required.

AI-generated settlement recommendations should also be verified because factual or legal errors can materially affect parties' rights.

42. Restorative Justice and Settlement Design

A strong settlement can contain four layers.

Layer 1 — Past harm

What happened?

Layer 2 — Restoration

What must be returned or repaired?

Layer 3 — Compensation

What additional loss should be addressed?

Layer 4 — Future relationship

What safeguards prevent recurrence?

This creates:

Past repair + present resolution + future prevention.

43. Limits of Restorative Justice

Restorative approaches are not appropriate for every dispute.

They can be difficult where:

• one party refuses to participate;
• there is extreme information imbalance;
• urgent injunctive relief is required;
• assets are being dissipated;
• limitation periods are close;
• a binding legal precedent is required;
• fraud or illegality makes consensual resolution unsuitable;
• the parties cannot negotiate safely;
• enforcement is uncertain.

In such circumstances, litigation or arbitration may remain necessary.

44. Restorative Justice Does Not Eliminate Legal Rights

A settlement should not be confused with surrender of legal rights.

A party can mediate while maintaining its legal position.

The process seeks:

consensual resolution of the dispute

rather than:

abandonment of legal rights.

45. Restorative Justice and Access to Justice

Restorative mechanisms can improve access to justice where litigation is:

• expensive;
• lengthy;
• technically complex;
• geographically difficult;
• commercially disruptive.

The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal itself emphasizes mediation and settlement-oriented processes, including private and relatively informal proceedings.

This demonstrates how restorative principles can be integrated into specialized civil adjudication.

46. UAE Restorative Justice Model

The emerging UAE model can therefore be represented as:

Dispute

↓

Negotiation

↓

Mediation / Conciliation

↓

Settlement

↓

Restitution + Compensation + Repair

↓

Enforcement

If settlement fails:

↓

Court / Arbitration

↓

Judgment or Award

This is a multi-door civil justice system rather than a purely litigation-centered model.

47. Important Case-Law Lessons

Tourani

Courts can actively encourage mediation to preserve relationships.

Wilson

Judicial mediation can be conducted remotely with confidentiality and good-faith participation.

Kurtha

The court can require serious efforts toward ADR before full litigation.

Murin

A settlement agreement can itself determine the appropriate future dispute-resolution mechanism.

Musob

Negotiation, mediation and arbitration can operate as sequential contractual mechanisms.

Dattani

Restitution can restore the economic position following valid termination.

Lendro

Restoration can operate after extraordinary circumstances produce valid termination.

DAMAC v Ward

Restorative remedies remain subject to substantive legal requirements.

Hexagon

Restitution cannot simply substitute for proof of the relevant legal basis.

48. Examination Answer Structure

For an exam question on “Restorative Justice Models in UAE Civil Disputes”, use this structure:

Introduction

Define restorative justice.

Legal framework

Discuss:

• Federal Decree-Law No. 40 of 2023;
• Civil Transactions Law;
• judicial mediation;
• ADR.

Models

Explain:

1. mediation;
2. conciliation;
3. restitution;
4. compensation;
5. relationship preservation;
6. judicial mediation;
7. digital mediation;
8. negotiated restructuring.

Case law

Discuss at least six cases.

Limitations

Explain that restorative justice does not replace adjudication in every dispute.

Conclusion

Explain that UAE civil justice increasingly combines adjudication with consensual and restorative mechanisms.

49. Quick Revision Table

50. Conclusion

Restorative justice in UAE civil disputes is best understood as a system of repairing harm, restoring benefits, resolving disagreements consensually where possible, and preserving relationships without abandoning legal enforceability.

The UAE's Federal Decree-Law No. 40 of 2023 on Mediation and Conciliation in Civil and Commercial Disputes provides an important federal foundation for this approach. The DIFC Courts have also developed sophisticated judicial mediation and ADR mechanisms.

The case law demonstrates several different models. Tourani illustrates judicial encouragement of mediation; Wilson demonstrates structured remote judicial mediation; Kurtha demonstrates court-directed settlement efforts; Murin and Musob demonstrate the legal significance of contractual settlement and multi-stage dispute-resolution clauses; while Dattani and Lendro demonstrate restitution as a form of remedial restoration.

The central concept can therefore be summarized as:

UAE restorative civil justice = identify the harm + involve the affected parties + restore benefits + compensate legitimate loss + repair the relationship where possible + create an enforceable future solution.

It is consequently broader than simple mediation. Mediation is a process; restitution and compensation are remedies; settlement is an outcome; and restorative justice is the broader philosophy connecting these mechanisms.