Civil Law and UAE Simple Causation Principles Checklist

1. Introduction

Causation means the legal connection between a person's wrongful act, breach or omission and the damage suffered by another person.

In simple words:

Wrongful conduct → Damage → Causal connection → Liability

A claimant may prove that the defendant acted wrongly and that damage occurred, but compensation normally requires a sufficient causal relationship between the conduct and the damage.

The current UAE Civil Transactions Law is Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025, which entered into force on 1 June 2026 and replaced the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law. The current harmful-act provisions distinguish direct harm from harm occurring through causation and also address external causes and multiple wrongdoers.

2. Meaning of Causation

Causation answers the question:

Did the defendant's act actually cause the claimant's legally recognised damage?

For example:

A driver negligently hits a pedestrian.

Negligent driving → accident → physical injury → medical expenses

The accident and injury may therefore be causally connected to the driver's conduct.

But suppose the claimant later suffers a completely unrelated loss.

The defendant should not automatically be responsible for every subsequent event.

Therefore, causation performs an important limiting function in civil liability.

3. Basic UAE Causation Checklist

Before concluding that civil liability exists, ask:

Checklist 1 — Was there wrongful conduct?

□ Was there an unlawful act?

□ Was there a contractual breach?

□ Was there negligence or another legally recognised basis of liability?

Checklist 2 — Did actual damage occur?

□ Is there physical damage?

□ Is there property damage?

□ Is there financial loss?

□ Is there moral damage where legally recognised?

□ Is the claimed future loss sufficiently established?

Checklist 3 — Is there a causal connection?

□ Did the defendant's conduct contribute to the damage?

□ Would the damage have occurred without the defendant's conduct?

□ Was the conduct a legally relevant cause?

□ Is the alleged causal connection supported by evidence?

Checklist 4 — Was another event responsible?

□ Was there force majeure?

□ Was there an act of God?

□ Did a third party cause the damage?

□ Did the injured person's own conduct cause or contribute to the damage?

The current Article 249 expressly addresses external causes beyond the defendant's control, including force majeure, acts of third parties and acts of the injured person.

Checklist 5 — Was the damage a natural consequence?

□ Is the damage sufficiently connected to the wrongful act?

□ Is the claimed loss merely speculative?

□ Is there evidence establishing the amount of loss?

4. Current Statutory Framework

The current Civil Transactions Law contains an important group of provisions concerning harmful acts.

Article 245 — General Framework

Special legislation applies where a particular subject is governed by special rules.

Therefore, causation must sometimes be examined together with:

construction legislation;

labour legislation;

insurance law;

consumer law;

banking legislation;

transportation law;

data-protection legislation;

other special laws.

5. Article 246 — Harmful Acts

The current Civil Transactions Law establishes the basic principle that a person who causes harm may be required to compensate for the resulting damage.

This creates the foundation for civil liability arising from harmful conduct.

The basic formula is:

Harmful act + Damage + Causation = Potential civil liability

Causation cannot be ignored merely because wrongful conduct has been established.

6. Article 247 — Direct and Causal Harm

Article 247 is particularly important for a causation checklist.

The provision distinguishes between:

A. Direct harm

The person's conduct directly produces the damage.

Example:

A negligently breaks B's machine.

Act → destruction

The causal chain is relatively straightforward.

B. Harm occurring through causation

The damage occurs through another causal mechanism.

The law therefore requires examination of whether the person responsible for the conduct can legally be connected with the resulting harm.

This distinction is important because UAE civil law does not treat every remote consequence as automatically attributable to the defendant.

7. Direct Cause and Intervening Events

A major causation problem arises where another event occurs between the defendant's conduct and the final damage.

Example:

A negligently leaves a dangerous object on a road.

Later:

B independently creates another dangerous situation.

C is injured.

The court may need to determine whether A's conduct remained a legally relevant cause of C's injury or whether B's conduct became the effective cause.

The important question is:

Did the later event break the causal connection?

8. External Cause

Current Article 249 provides an important defence.

Where the defendant establishes that the harm resulted from an external cause beyond the defendant's control, such as:

act of God;

sudden accident;

force majeure;

act of a third party;

act of the injured person,

the defendant may avoid compensation liability unless the law or agreement provides otherwise.

Therefore:

External cause → possible exclusion of liability

But the existence of an alleged external event does not automatically end the analysis. Its actual causal effect must be established.

9. Claimant's Own Conduct

The claimant's own conduct may affect causation.

For example:

A contractor negligently leaves an unsafe opening.

B sees the opening but deliberately enters it despite an adequate warning and suffers injury.

The court may examine whether B's conduct:

contributed to the damage;

caused the damage;

reduced the defendant's responsibility;

or had no legally significant effect.

The claimant's conduct must therefore be included in the causation analysis.

10. Multiple Causes

Damage may result from several causes.

For example:

Defective product + negligent installation + improper use → injury

The court may need to determine the responsibility of each participant.

The current Civil Transactions Law contains specific rules concerning multiple persons responsible for the same harm.

Article 253 addresses the allocation of responsibility where several persons are involved in causing damage.

This is particularly important in:

construction disputes;

medical malpractice;

product liability;

transportation accidents;

environmental damage;

corporate negligence.

11. Contributory Conduct

Sometimes both parties contribute to the loss.

Example:

A negligently causes an accident.

B is also negligent because B failed to take reasonable precautions.

The court may therefore need to consider B's contribution when determining liability and compensation.

Causation and contribution should not be confused.

Causation asks:

Did the defendant's conduct contribute to the damage?

Contribution asks:

Did the claimant or another person also contribute to the damage?

12. Causation and Damage Must Be Distinguished

A claimant may prove causation but still fail to establish the amount of damage.

For example:

A's negligence caused B's business interruption.

But B cannot establish how much profit was actually lost.

The court may accept:

causation

but reject or reduce:

the amount of damages claimed.

Therefore:

Causation ≠ proof of quantum

Both must be established separately.

13. Future Damage

Future loss can sometimes be compensated where it is sufficiently established.

The important distinction is between:

Certain future damage

Damage that will actually occur or is sufficiently established.

Merely possible damage

Damage that might occur but is uncertain.

The latter is much more difficult to recover.

In Globemed Gulf Healthcare Solutions LLC v Oman Insurance Company PSC [2017] DIFC CFI 051, the DIFC Court discussed UAE Supreme Court and Dubai Court of Cassation jurisprudence concerning actual injury and future loss. The court referred to the principle that compensation requires actual injury and that future injury must be sufficiently certain rather than merely speculative.

This provides a useful illustration of the distinction between:

certain future loss

and

possible future loss.

14. Burden of Proving Causation

Generally, the claimant must establish the factual foundation of the claim.

Evidence may include:

contracts;

invoices;

photographs;

expert reports;

medical records;

engineering reports;

financial records;

electronic records;

correspondence;

witness evidence.

In technical disputes, expert evidence may be particularly important.

15. Expert Evidence and Causation

Experts may be required where causation involves technical questions.

Examples:

Construction

Was the structural defect caused by defective design or defective workmanship?

Medical malpractice

Did the alleged medical error actually cause the patient's injury?

Vehicle accident

Was the accident caused by the defendant's conduct?

Product liability

Did the defective product cause the consumer's injury?

Financial loss

Did the defendant's conduct actually cause the claimed business loss?

The court remains responsible for the legal determination of causation, even where technical evidence is provided by experts.

16. Causation in Contractual Liability

Causation is not limited to tort.

It may also arise in contractual disputes.

Example:

A contractor fails to complete a project on time.

The owner claims:

additional rent;

lost revenue;

financing costs;

other losses.

The claimant must establish that the contractual breach actually caused the claimed loss.

A breach alone does not automatically establish every item of claimed damage.

17. Causation in Tort

The basic tort structure is:

Wrongful act

↓

Damage

↓

Causal connection

↓

Compensation

This principle has repeatedly appeared in UAE jurisprudence.

In Dubai Court of Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019, as quoted and applied in BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC & Amer Affan [2021] DIFC CFI 106, liability requires the relevant elements of breach/fault, damage and causal connection; breach alone is insufficient to establish compensation.

The authority is useful as a concise statement of the basic causation requirement.

18. Case Law 1 — Dubai Court of Cassation No. 33 of 2019

This authority concerned civil liability and compensation.

The principle identified in the subsequent DIFC judgment is that liability requires the relevant elements to coexist, including:

wrongful conduct/fault;

damage;

causal connection.

Importance

A claimant cannot simply say:

"The defendant breached the obligation, therefore I deserve damages."

The claimant must additionally establish:

What damage occurred and how the defendant's conduct caused it.

19. Case Law 2 — Dubai Commercial Appeal No. 445/2020/1034

This decision concerned the causal connection between wrongful conduct and damage.

The judgment, as discussed in BAM Higgs & Hill, recognised causal connection as an essential element of civil liability.

The court considered circumstances capable of breaking or affecting causation, including:

force majeure;

foreign cause;

creditor's fault;

third-party conduct.

Importance

This case demonstrates the intervening-cause principle.

20. Case Law 3 — Haya Spa LLC v Harper Real Estate / Hasan Real Estate [2016] DIFC SCT 150

This is a particularly useful causation authority.

The claimant received incorrect information about premises and relied upon that information in beginning an expensive design process.

The DIFC Court applied Articles 10 and 11 of the DIFC Law of Obligations.

The court explained causation using two connected ideas:

the claimant would not have suffered the loss but for the defendant's conduct; and

the defendant's conduct must have been a substantial cause of the loss.

The court also considered whether a later event had become a supervening cause.

Importance

The case gives a simple causation test:

But for the defendant's conduct + substantial causal contribution = causation

This is a DIFC authority, not a mainland UAE precedent.

21. Case Law 4 — Shihab Khalil v Shuaa Capital PSC [2009] DIFC CFI 017

The DIFC Court explained that a negligence claim requires both:

lack of due care; and

proof that the lack of care caused loss.

If causation is omitted, an essential part of the cause of action is missing.

Importance

The case demonstrates:

Negligence without causation is insufficient for a damages claim.

This is a DIFC authority and is particularly useful for understanding the logical structure of negligence claims.

22. Case Law 5 — Ludiala v Lucaan Limited [2020] DIFC SCT 139

This case involved an allegation of psychological harm.

The claimant attempted to establish that workplace conduct caused the alleged psychiatric injury.

The DIFC Court held that the medical evidence did not sufficiently establish that the defendant caused the claimed psychiatric harm.

The court emphasised the requirement to prove causation rather than relying merely on the claimant's own assertion.

Importance

The case provides a strong evidentiary lesson:

Claiming that A caused B is not the same as proving that A caused B.

Medical causation requires appropriate evidence.

23. Case Law 6 — Globemed Gulf Healthcare Solutions LLC v Oman Insurance Company PSC [2017] DIFC CFI 051

The case discussed UAE jurisprudence concerning:

actual injury;

future injury;

certainty of future loss;

causal relationship between wrongful conduct and damage.

The DIFC Court referred to Dubai Court of Cassation authorities stating that compensation may cover loss of earnings where it is a consequent result of the wrongful act and sufficiently established.

Importance

It demonstrates that:

Future loss must be sufficiently certain and causally connected, rather than merely speculative.

24. Case Law 7 — IDBI Bank Limited v Amira C Foods International DMCC & Others [2019] DIFC CA 014

This case is particularly useful for understanding causal connection in damages assessment.

The DIFC Court of Appeal explained that a benefit should be brought into account against damages only where it is causally connected to the breach or represents mitigation of its consequences.

Importance

Causation therefore operates not only when establishing liability.

It can also affect:

the calculation of damages.

The question becomes:

Is this benefit or avoided loss sufficiently connected to the breach to affect the damages calculation?

25. Case Law 8 — Al Khorafi v Bank Sarasin-Alpen (ME) Ltd [2011] DIFC CA 003

This case concerned the DIFC jurisdictional concept of an "incident."

The DIFC Court of Appeal explained that an incident may include an essential element of conduct or the incidence of loss or damage necessary to establish a tort or statutory claim.

Importance

Although principally a jurisdiction case, it demonstrates that conduct and resulting damage are distinct but connected components of a civil cause of action.

It is particularly useful when analysing cross-border disputes involving several locations.

26. Simple Causation Flowchart

A useful exam diagram is:

1. Defendant's act

↓

2. Was the act wrongful?

↓

3. Did actual damage occur?

↓

4. Did the act cause the damage?

↓

5. Was another event an intervening cause?

↓

6. Did the claimant contribute to the damage?

↓

7. Is the damage legally recoverable?

↓

8. What amount of compensation is proved?

27. Causation Checklist for Lawyers

Before filing a damages claim, ask:

28. Causation and Force Majeure

Force majeure may interrupt the causal connection.

Example:

A contractor is delayed by its own negligence.

Later, an extraordinary external event makes further performance impossible.

The court may have to determine:

which losses were caused by the contractor;

which losses were caused by the external event;

whether the external event completely or partially displaced the earlier cause.

Therefore:

Force majeure is not simply a contractual defence; it can also be relevant to causation.

29. Causation and Third-Party Acts

A third party may intervene between the defendant's conduct and the damage.

Example:

A negligently creates a dangerous condition.

B, independently and intentionally, causes the final injury.

The court may ask whether B's conduct became the effective cause.

The answer depends upon the circumstances and the applicable statutory framework.

30. Causation and Digital Systems

Causation is becoming more complicated in:

AI systems;

automated decision-making;

smart contracts;

blockchain;

autonomous vehicles;

algorithmic trading;

cybersecurity;

digital platforms.

A causal chain may look like:

Developer → software → data → algorithm → automated decision → human action → damage

The legal question is not simply:

"Did the technology cause the damage?"

Instead, the court may examine:

who designed the system;

who controlled it;

who supplied the data;

who deployed it;

whether there was negligence;

whether a contractual duty existed;

whether another event intervened;

whether the damage was actually caused by the system.

The basic civil-law requirement of causal connection therefore remains relevant even when the factual chain becomes technologically complex.

31. Causation and Compensation

Current Article 255 links compensation to the extent of the loss and lost profit where they constitute the natural consequence of the harmful act.

Therefore:

Causation determines whether the loss is attributable; damages rules determine how the loss is valued.

The distinction is important.

For example:

A's wrongful act causes B to lose AED 100,000.

If B proves the causal connection, the next question is:

How much of the AED 100,000 is legally compensable and properly proved?

32. Natural Consequence

A central practical concept is whether the claimed loss represents a sufficiently natural consequence of the harmful act.

Example:

A negligently damages B's factory.

Likely directly connected losses may include:

repair costs;

necessary replacement costs;

certain proven business losses.

But B may also claim that the damage caused an unrelated business failure three years later.

The court must examine the causal chain carefully rather than assuming that every later loss flows from the original event.

33. Causation vs Remoteness

These concepts should be distinguished.

Causation

Did the defendant's conduct cause the damage?

Remoteness / legal limitation

Even if there is factual causation, is the particular loss sufficiently connected to justify legal responsibility?

Thus:

Factual connection does not automatically mean unlimited legal responsibility.

34. Causation vs Fault

Fault and causation are different.

Example:

A acts negligently but causes no damage.

There may be:

fault

but no compensable loss.

Conversely, damage may occur without legally attributable fault in a particular liability regime.

Therefore, always analyse separately:

basis of liability;

damage;

causation.

35. Causation vs Damage

These are also different.

Example:

A's conduct causes B's property to be damaged.

Causation asks:

Did A cause the damage?

Damage asks:

What loss did B actually suffer?

The claimant must establish both.

36. Examination Answer Formula

For an examination, use:

Causation is the legal connection between the defendant's wrongful act or breach and the claimant's damage. UAE civil liability generally requires the relevant wrongful conduct, legally recognised damage and a causal connection. The current Civil Transactions Law distinguishes direct harm from harm occurring through causation and recognises external causes such as force majeure, third-party acts and the injured person's own conduct. UAE jurisprudence also requires the claimant to establish that the alleged conduct actually caused the claimed loss.

Then apply:

Act → Damage → Causation → Intervening Cause → Contribution → Recoverable Loss → Compensation

37. Key Case-Law Principles at a Glance

38. Final Revision Checklist

Remember the following 10 points:

No damage, normally no damages.

Wrongdoing alone is insufficient.

Causation connects conduct to damage.

Direct and indirect/causal harm must be distinguished.

The claimant must establish the causal connection.

An intervening event may affect liability.

Force majeure may break or alter causation.

The claimant's own conduct may affect responsibility.

Future loss must be sufficiently certain, not merely speculative.

The amount of compensation must correspond to legally recoverable loss.

One-Line Memory Rule

UAE causation = Wrongful Conduct + Actual Damage + Causal Connection − Effective Intervening Cause/Contributory Factors = Civil Liability and Recoverable Compensation.

Important Current-Law Note

The six-plus cases discussed above include both mainland UAE jurisprudence and DIFC authorities. The DIFC cases are useful for comparative analysis of causation, but they should not be presented as binding mainland UAE precedents. Most mainland UAE cases were decided under the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law; because the 2025 Civil Transactions Law has been effective since 1 June 2026, its current article numbering should be used for present-day legal analysis.