Civil Law and Vicarious Liability Under the UAE Civil Code

1. Introduction

Vicarious liability under UAE civil law is principally governed by Article 313 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 issuing the Civil Transactions Law (UAE Civil Code).

The basic rule of UAE civil law is that a person is ordinarily responsible for his or her own wrongful act. Article 313 creates an important exception by permitting the court, in appropriate circumstances, to require a person who has actual authority to supervise and direct the wrongdoer to pay the compensation resulting from the subordinate's wrongful act.

The UAE approach is therefore somewhat different from the traditional common-law formulation of employer vicarious liability. It is closely connected with:

• actual authority;
• supervision;
• direction;
• the subordinate relationship;
• wrongful conduct;
• performance of employment or conduct because of employment;
• damage;
• causation;
• the court's discretion;
• the employer's right of recourse against the employee.

UAE courts have repeatedly emphasized these requirements, particularly the actual power of control and direction and the connection between the employee's wrongful act and the employment.

2. Statutory Basis: Article 313

Article 313 is located in the Civil Code's provisions concerning liability arising from the acts of others.

Its central provision states, in substance, that:

No one is liable for another person's act, but the judge may, upon the injured person's request and where justified, require certain persons to pay the damages imposed upon the person who caused the harm.

For vicarious liability, Article 313(1)(b) covers a person who:

• has actual authority over the wrongdoer;
• possesses authority to control and direct that person;
• even if the subordinate was not freely chosen;
• where the wrongful act occurred while performing the subordinate's function or because of it. 

Article 313(2) also gives the person who paid the compensation a right of recourse against the person who was originally responsible for the wrongful act.

3. Basic Structure of UAE Vicarious Liability

The UAE Civil Code framework can be expressed as:

Wrongful act by subordinate

↓

Existence of actual authority/control

↓

Wrongful act committed while performing the job or because of it

↓

Damage + causation

↓

Court considers whether it is justified to impose liability on the principal/employer

↓

Employer pays compensation

↓

Right of recourse against the wrongdoer

4. General Rule: No Liability for Another's Act

Article 313 begins from an important principle:

A person is not ordinarily liable for another person's wrongful act.

This reflects the UAE Civil Code's general approach to personal responsibility.

Vicarious liability is therefore an exception, not the general rule.

The UAE Federal Supreme Court has explained that the employee's liability is the original liability, while the employer's liability is derivative or secondary. The legislative purpose is to protect the injured person where appropriate without converting the employer into the original wrongdoer.

5. Why Article 313 Creates an Exception

The UAE Civil Code recognizes a practical problem:

An employee may cause substantial damage but may lack sufficient assets to compensate the injured party.

The employer or principal may:

• control the employee;
• supervise the work;
• organize the enterprise;
• benefit from the activity;
• have greater financial capacity;
• have insurance.

Accordingly, Article 313 allows the court, where justified, to place the compensation burden upon the person who exercised actual authority over the wrongdoer.

The Federal Supreme Court has described this as a form of legal guarantee designed to protect the injured person.

6. Essential Elements

A claimant should generally establish the following:

1. Wrongful act

The subordinate must have committed a legally actionable wrongful act.

2. Damage

The claimant must have suffered legally recognized damage.

3. Causation

There must be a causal relationship between the wrongful conduct and damage.

4. Relationship of subordination

The defendant must possess the legally relevant authority over the wrongdoer.

5. Actual authority

The authority must involve control, supervision or direction.

6. Connection with employment

The wrongful act must occur:

• while performing the function; or
• because of the function.

7. Judicial justification

Article 313 expressly gives the judge discretion to impose the guarantee where the circumstances justify it.

7. Actual Authority: The Most Important Requirement

The expression “actual authority” is central to Article 313.

It is not enough that:

• the employer pays the person;
• the person works in the same organization;
• the person has a business relationship with the defendant.

The relevant question is whether the defendant has actual authority to:

• supervise;
• direct;
• organize;
• control the performance of work.

The Dubai Court of Cassation has repeatedly stated that the relationship of subordination depends upon the existence of actual authority involving supervision and direction.

8. Employment Contract as Evidence

An employment contract is strong evidence of a subordinate relationship.

But the court is not necessarily limited to the contractual wording.

It can examine the real relationship between the parties.

Relevant facts may include:

• who gives instructions;
• who controls working methods;
• who supervises performance;
• who determines working arrangements;
• who can discipline the employee;
• who organizes the work;
• whether the person is integrated into the enterprise.

9. Formal Title Is Not Conclusive

A person may be called:

• consultant;
• manager;
• agent;
• freelancer;
• contractor;
• representative;

but the court can examine the actual relationship.

The important question is:

Who actually possessed the power to control and direct the person when the wrongful act occurred?

The UAE courts have treated actual supervision and direction as more important than purely formal descriptions.

10. Actual Authority Can Exist Even Without Free Choice

Article 313 expressly contemplates a person having actual authority over the wrongdoer even if that person was not free in choosing the subordinate.

Therefore, the employer cannot necessarily escape Article 313 simply by arguing:

“I did not personally choose this employee.”

The statutory focus is on actual control and direction.

11. Wrongful Act During Employment

The first important connection is where the employee commits the wrongful act while performing the assigned job.

Example

A company driver negligently causes an accident while delivering goods.

The driver's act occurs:

• during working hours;
• while carrying out assigned duties;
• using the employment function.

Article 313 is therefore directly relevant.

12. Wrongful Act Because of Employment

Article 313 is broader than simply asking whether the employee was performing an assigned task.

The wrongful act may also be connected to employment because the employment:

• created the opportunity;
• facilitated the wrongful conduct;
• provided authority;
• enabled access to property or information;
• placed the employee in a position to commit the wrongful act.

The Dubai Court of Cassation has expressly explained that responsibility may arise where the employee's position was the direct cause of the wrongdoing, necessary for its occurrence, or facilitated or provided an opportunity for the wrongful act.

13. Employee's Personal Motive

An employee's personal motive does not necessarily eliminate vicarious liability.

For example, an employee may:

• misuse authority;
• commit fraud;
• steal property;
• falsify documents;
• misuse customer information;

while using the position created by employment.

The question remains whether there is sufficient connection between the employment and the wrongful act.

The Dubai Court of Cassation has stated that the employer's liability can arise even where the employee's conduct was not ordered by, or known to, the employer.

14. Employer's Knowledge Is Not Necessarily Required

This is a major UAE principle.

The employer does not necessarily escape liability by proving:

“I did not know the employee was going to do this.”

The courts have emphasized that it can be sufficient that:

• the employee committed the wrongful act;
• the employee was subject to the employer's actual authority;
• the wrongful act occurred while performing employment or because of it.

Whether the employer knew or authorized the specific act is not necessarily decisive.

15. Employer's Instructions

Similarly, an employee's violation of instructions does not automatically eliminate Article 313 liability.

For example:

A bank employee is instructed never to process an unauthorized transaction, but deliberately processes one using his position.

The fact that the employer prohibited the conduct does not necessarily defeat vicarious liability if the employee's position and authority facilitated the wrongful act.

16. Independent Contractor

A genuine independent contractor normally does not create the same Article 313 relationship as an employee.

The key question is whether the alleged employer actually possessed:

authority to control, supervise and direct the person.

If the contractor independently controls the manner of performing the work, the claimant may face difficulty establishing the required relationship.

However, contractual labels are not conclusive; courts look at the factual relationship.

17. Agency and Vicarious Liability

An agency relationship can produce complicated results.

A principal is not automatically responsible for every act of an agent merely because an agency agreement exists.

However, if the agent is effectively subject to the principal's:

• supervision;
• direction;
• control;

the relationship may fall within Article 313's concept of subordination.

The Dubai courts have recognized that even where an individual is formally described as an agent, a relationship resembling subordinate and principal can lead to responsibility under the tort rules.

18. Corporate Employers

A company can be a “principal” for Article 313 purposes.

Typical situations include:

• company employees;
• factory workers;
• drivers;
• accountants;
• sales representatives;
• security employees;
• medical employees;
• construction workers;
• bank employees.

The company may be required to compensate an injured third party where the statutory requirements are satisfied.

19. Medical Negligence

Article 313 is particularly important in medical litigation.

Suppose:

• a hospital employs a doctor;
• the doctor negligently performs surgery;
• the patient suffers injury.

There may be:

1. direct liability of the doctor;
2. vicarious liability of the hospital;
3. potentially independent liability of the hospital based on its own conduct.

The Dubai Court of Cassation expressly applied Article 313 to a medical-negligence dispute involving doctors and a nurse employed by a medical entity.

20. Medical Negligence and Causation

Vicarious liability does not eliminate the need to prove:

• professional error;
• injury;
• causal relationship.

In Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2023, the court emphasized that medical responsibility depends upon professional fault and causation, and accepted the medical expert evidence establishing errors by the doctor and operating-room nurse. The medical entity was then treated as responsible for the acts of its employees under Article 313.

21. Banking and Financial Employees

Vicarious liability can also arise from employee misconduct in financial institutions.

Examples include:

• unauthorized transfers;
• forged documents;
• unauthorized account opening;
• misuse of customer information;
• fraudulent transactions.

However, banking disputes may also involve contractual liability of the bank itself, meaning the court must carefully distinguish:

bank's own contractual liability

from

Article 313 liability for employee wrongdoing.

22. Example: Employee Fraud

Suppose a bank employee uses his employment position to create a false customer account and transfers money.

Possible legal questions include:

• Was the employee actually subordinate to the bank?
• Did the bank have authority to supervise and direct him?
• Did his employment facilitate the fraud?
• Did the employee commit a wrongful act?
• Did the claimant suffer damage?
• Is the bank also independently liable under its banking contract?

The answer depends on evidence.

23. UAE Case Law: Federal Supreme Court, Appeal No. 2 of 2009, General Assembly, 18 October 2010

This is one of the most important UAE authorities on Article 313.

The Federal Supreme Court's General Assembly considered conflicting approaches concerning whether the injured claimant could sue the employer alone without joining the employee.

The Court explained that:

• the employee's liability is original;
• the employer's Article 313 liability is derivative;
• the employer's liability depends upon establishing the employee's responsibility;
• the employee's responsibility must therefore be established in the relevant proceedings. 

Importance

This decision is particularly important because it explains the legal theory underlying Article 313.

Key principle

The employer's liability is subsidiary/derivative rather than an independent liability based on presumed personal fault.

24. UAE Case Law: Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2022, Judgment of 10 March 2022

This case involved an accounting employee who committed fraudulent acts involving electronic records and appropriated approximately AED 1.8 million.

The employer disputed the existence of the required relationship of subordination.

The Dubai Court of Cassation found that the employee was working for the employer and that the wrongful conduct occurred within the factual circumstances of the employment relationship.

The Court emphasized that Article 313 liability depends upon:

• actual authority;
• supervision;
• direction;
• wrongful conduct during employment or because of employment.

It also held that the injured party could directly pursue the principal in the circumstances considered by the Dubai court.

Importance

This case is especially useful for:

• employee fraud;
• accounting employees;
• electronic records;
• financial losses;
• corporate vicarious liability.

25. UAE Case Law: Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 33 of 2023, Judgment of 23 March 2023

This case concerned alleged financial manipulation and the question of whether an employer was responsible for an employee's conduct.

The court reiterated that Article 313 requires:

• an actual relationship of subordination;
• authority to supervise and direct;
• wrongful conduct during employment or because of employment.

The court also emphasized that determining the existence of the relationship is primarily a factual matter for the trial court, provided its findings are supported by adequate evidence.

Importance

The case also illustrates the importance of expert evidence in proving the underlying facts.

26. UAE Case Law: Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2023, Judgment of 25 May 2023

This is an important medical negligence and vicarious liability decision.

The case concerned a doctor and operating-room nurse whose medical error involved leaving surgical gauze inside a patient's body.

The court found professional fault and held the medical establishment responsible on the basis of its responsibility for its employees under Article 313.

Principle

A hospital or medical establishment may be responsible for negligent acts of doctors and nurses where the Article 313 relationship of actual supervision and direction exists.

27. UAE Case Law: Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeals Nos. 211 and 264 of 2025, Judgment of 28 May 2025

The Dubai Court of Cassation reaffirmed that the relationship of subordination under Article 313 is characterized by:

• actual authority;
• supervision;
• direction;
• control.

The court also recognized that an employment relationship normally contains an element of organizational subordination because the employee works according to the employer's instructions and supervision.

Importance

The decision is useful for modern commercial disputes because it confirms that the Article 313 analysis continues to focus on the actual organizational relationship.

28. UAE Case Law: Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 39 of 2025, Judgment of 19 March 2025

This decision provides a particularly clear explanation of the scope of Article 313.

The court stated that the relationship of subordination requires:

• actual supervisory authority;
• power to issue instructions;
• ability to organize the manner of work;
• ability to supervise implementation.

Importantly, the court explained that Article 313 liability is not restricted to an employee's technically assigned task. It can arise where the employee:

• exploits the employment;
• is assisted by the employment;
• is given an opportunity to commit the wrongful act;
• acts for personal motives;
• acts without the employer's knowledge. 

Importance

This is a strong authority for the “because of employment” component of Article 313.

29. Case-Law Summary

30. Difference Between Direct and Vicarious Liability

This distinction is essential.

Direct liability

The employer personally commits a wrongful act.

Example:

Hospital negligently maintains defective medical equipment.

The hospital may be directly liable.

Vicarious liability

An employee commits the wrongful act.

Example:

Hospital employee negligently performs treatment.

The hospital may be liable under Article 313.

Both can coexist

A hospital could therefore face:

direct liability + vicarious liability

arising from the same factual situation.

31. Vicarious Liability and Articles 282–283

Article 313 should be read together with the UAE Civil Code's general tort provisions.

Article 282

The basic principle is that a person who causes harm to another must compensate for that harm.

Article 283

The Code distinguishes between:

• direct harm (mubasharah); and
• causative harm (tasabbub).

The UAE Federal Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that wrongful conduct, damage and causation are fundamental components of civil liability.

Thus:

Article 282 → underlying tort

Article 313 → liability of another person for the subordinate's tort

32. Causation

Article 313 does not eliminate causation.

The claimant must still establish that:

The employee's wrongful conduct caused the claimant's damage.

For example:

Employee negligently drives company vehicle → accident → physical injury.

But if the employee's act did not cause the alleged loss, Article 313 cannot be used to manufacture liability merely because an employment relationship existed.

33. Damage

The claimant may seek compensation for legally recognized:

Material damage

• property damage;
• medical expenses;
• business losses;
• repair costs;
• financial losses.

Moral damage

Where recognized under UAE law, compensation may potentially include harm to:

• reputation;
• dignity;
• feelings;
• personal rights.

The actual award depends upon proof and judicial assessment.

34. Burden of Proof

A claimant should generally provide evidence concerning:

1. the employee's wrongful act;
2. the employee's position;
3. the employment or subordinate relationship;
4. the employer's actual authority;
5. the connection between employment and wrongful conduct;
6. damage;
7. causation.

Evidence can include:

• employment contracts;
• company records;
• organizational charts;
• job descriptions;
• emails;
• instructions;
• work schedules;
• payroll records;
• expert reports;
• witness evidence;
• electronic communications.

35. Expert Evidence

Expert evidence can be particularly important in:

• medical negligence;
• construction;
• accounting;
• engineering;
• banking;
• technical disputes.

The Dubai Court of Cassation has recognized that the trial court may assess expert evidence and determine whether the evidence establishes the factual elements necessary for liability.

36. Judicial Discretion

An important characteristic of Article 313 is the language giving the judge power to impose liability where the judge considers it justified.

Therefore, Article 313 is not simply:

“Every employer is automatically liable whenever an employee commits a tort.”

Instead, the court examines:

• relationship;
• authority;
• employment connection;
• wrongful conduct;
• damage;
• causation;
• circumstances justifying the imposition of guarantee.

37. Employer's Right of Recourse

Article 313(2) provides an important protection to the employer or principal who pays compensation.

After paying the injured person, the employer can seek recovery from the person who was responsible for the wrongful act.

Thus:

Third party suffers damage

↓

Employee is responsible

↓

Employer pays compensation under Article 313

↓

Employer may seek recourse against employee

This demonstrates why UAE law characterizes the employer's responsibility as derivative.

38. Is the Employer a Joint Wrongdoer?

Not necessarily.

This is a very important conceptual distinction.

The employee is the person who committed the wrongful act.

The employer's liability arises because Article 313 creates a statutory mechanism for requiring the employer to provide compensation.

Therefore, the employer's liability should not automatically be characterized as though the employer personally committed the same tort.

39. Employee Acting Outside Employment

Suppose an employee leaves work and uses personal property for a purely private activity unrelated to employment.

If the employment did not:

• cause the act;
• facilitate the act;
• provide the relevant authority;
• create the relevant opportunity;

Article 313 liability becomes much more difficult to establish.

The factual connection is therefore critical.

40. Employee Misusing Position

The position becomes different if an employee uses employment authority to commit wrongdoing.

Examples:

• bank employee misuses customer account access;
• company accountant falsifies company records;
• hospital employee misuses patient information;
• security employee abuses access privileges;
• company driver causes an accident while performing deliveries.

The courts have recognized that employment may create or facilitate the opportunity for wrongdoing even where the employer did not order or know about the wrongful act.

41. Vicarious Liability for Managers

A manager can be a subordinate for Article 313 purposes if another entity has actual authority to:

• supervise;
• direct;
• control the manager.

Therefore, the fact that someone holds a senior position does not automatically prevent a relationship of subordination.

The factual question remains:

Who actually had authority over the person?

42. Corporate Group Problems

A common UAE commercial problem is the use of several related companies.

For example:

• Company A employs a worker;
• Company B supervises the worker;
• Company C benefits from the work.

The claimant cannot automatically treat all three companies as one employer.

The court must identify:

• actual employer;
• actual supervisory authority;
• contractual arrangements;
• operational control;
• factual relationship.

Corporate affiliation alone does not necessarily establish Article 313 liability.

43. Subcontracting

Where a company subcontracts work, the subcontractor may be legally independent.

Therefore, the main contractor should not automatically be treated as vicariously liable for every wrongful act of a subcontractor.

The court must examine whether the main contractor actually possessed the relevant control and direction required by Article 313, or whether another legal basis of liability applies.

44. Vicarious Liability and Contractual Liability

A dispute may involve both:

Contractual liability

For breach of a contractual obligation.

Tortious liability

For wrongful conduct causing damage.

The UAE courts emphasize the importance of properly characterizing the legal basis of a claim. In a 2020 UAE Federal Supreme Court decision, the court stated that courts must give the claim its proper legal characterization rather than simply accepting the terminology used by the parties.

This can be important where the claimant has a contractual relationship with the company and also alleges employee wrongdoing.

45. Vicarious Liability and Criminal Conduct

An employee's criminal act can potentially create civil consequences.

For example:

• fraud;
• theft;
• forgery;
• assault;
• embezzlement.

However, the criminal character of the conduct does not by itself establish Article 313 liability.

The claimant must still establish:

• subordinate relationship;
• actual authority;
• employment connection;
• damage;
• causation.

46. Relationship with Criminal Judgment

A criminal judgment may provide important evidence concerning the employee's wrongful conduct.

However, civil courts must consider the scope and legal effect of the criminal judgment according to UAE procedural law.

The Dubai Court of Cassation has emphasized that the binding effect of a criminal judgment in civil proceedings is connected to the matters actually adjudicated and the persons who were parties to the criminal proceedings.

47. Vicarious Liability in Medical Institutions

A useful examination example:

A hospital employs a surgeon.

The surgeon:

• negligently performs an operation;
• causes injury;
• the medical expert committee establishes professional fault.

Potential liability:

Surgeon → original professional liability

Hospital → Article 313 vicarious liability

The Dubai Court of Cassation's Appeal No. 178 of 2023 provides a direct illustration of this principle.

48. Vicarious Liability in Banking

Another example:

A bank employee uses his position to authorize an unauthorized transfer.

The claimant may need to establish:

• employee's wrongful act;
• employee's employment;
• bank's authority over employee;
• connection between the banking function and unauthorized transaction;
• financial loss.

There may additionally be an independent contractual claim against the bank depending on the customer-bank relationship.

49. Vicarious Liability in Construction

Suppose a construction company's employee negligently operates machinery and damages a neighboring building.

Potential issues:

• Was the employee working for the company?
• Did the company control the employee?
• Was the machinery being used in assigned work?
• Did the employee's conduct cause the damage?
• Was the act within employment or sufficiently connected with it?

If established, Article 313 can become relevant.

50. Vicarious Liability in Transportation

This is one of the clearest examples.

A delivery driver employed by Company A:

• drives a company truck;
• makes a delivery;
• negligently collides with another vehicle.

The employer's actual control and the direct connection with employment make this a classic Article 313 situation.

51. Vicarious Liability and Digital Employees

Modern UAE disputes can involve:

• unauthorized electronic transfers;
• misuse of databases;
• data theft;
• unauthorized digital transactions;
• fraudulent emails;
• misuse of company platforms.

The underlying Article 313 analysis remains relevant:

Did the employment give the person actual authority, access or opportunity, and was the wrongful act connected with that employment?

The Dubai cases involving electronic records demonstrate the continuing importance of this principle.

52. Difference Between UAE and Traditional Common-Law Approach

53. Important Procedural Issue: Federal Supreme Court vs Dubai Cassation

There is an important point for advanced research.

The UAE Federal Supreme Court General Assembly decision in Appeal No. 2 of 2009 took the view that the employee's liability must first be established because the employer's liability under Article 313 is derivative.

Later Dubai Court of Cassation decisions, including Civil Appeal No. 29 of 2022, have described the principal's liability as a statutory guarantee and have allowed direct recourse against the principal in the circumstances before the Dubai court.

Therefore, in sophisticated UAE litigation, one should not simply state that the claimant must always sue the employee first.

The procedural position should be analyzed according to:

• the court involved;
• the applicable procedural law;
• the nature of the claim;
• the latest binding jurisprudence applicable to that court.

54. Practical Checklist for an Article 313 Claim

A claimant should establish:

A. Wrongdoer

Who committed the wrongful act?

B. Relationship

Was the person an employee, subordinate or otherwise under actual authority?

C. Control

Who supervised and directed the person?

D. Employment connection

Did the act occur during employment or because of employment?

E. Fault

What wrongful conduct occurred?

F. Damage

What actual loss occurred?

G. Causation

Did the employee's conduct cause the loss?

H. Evidence

What documents prove the relationship and wrongful act?

I. Employer

Which legal entity actually possessed the relevant authority?

J. Recourse

If the employer pays, what right of recovery exists against the employee?

55. Quick Problem-Question Example

Facts

A UAE company employs a sales manager.

The manager is authorized to communicate with customers and receive payments.

The manager fraudulently diverts AED 500,000 to a personal account.

Analysis

Step 1: The manager committed a wrongful act.

Step 2: The company exercised actual authority over the manager.

Step 3: The manager's position gave him access to customers and payment information.

Step 4: The fraud was connected with the employment position.

Step 5: The claimant suffered financial damage.

Step 6: Article 313 may therefore become relevant.

Step 7: If the company is required to compensate the injured party, Article 313(2) preserves the company's right of recourse against the responsible employee.

The precise result would depend on the evidence and applicable procedural rules.

56. Key Case-Law Principles for Revision

Federal Supreme Court, Appeal No. 2/2009

Employer liability under Article 313 is derivative, not original personal fault.

Dubai Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 29/2022

Actual subordination and employment connection can support liability for employee fraud.

Dubai Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 33/2023

Actual authority and factual evidence determine the relationship; expert evidence can be important.

Dubai Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 178/2023

Medical institution can be responsible for negligent acts of doctors and nurses.

Dubai Cassation, Commercial Appeals Nos. 211 & 264/2025

Actual supervision, direction and organizational subordination remain central.

Dubai Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 39/2025

Employment may facilitate wrongful conduct even when the employer did not authorize or know of the specific act.

57. Essential Articles to Remember

Article 313 is the principal statutory provision for the subject.

58. Ten Key Principles

1. Article 313 is the principal UAE Civil Code provision on vicarious liability.
2. The general rule is that a person is not responsible for another person's wrongful act.
3. Vicarious liability is therefore a statutory exception.
4. Actual authority is central.
5. That authority must involve control, supervision or direction.
6. The subordinate's wrongful act must occur while performing the function or because of it.
7. Employer knowledge of the particular wrongful act is not necessarily required.
8. The employee remains the person primarily responsible for the wrongful act.
9. The person paying compensation generally has a right of recourse against the original wrongdoer.
10. UAE courts examine the actual factual relationship, rather than merely relying upon contractual labels.

59. Final Conclusion

Vicarious liability under the UAE Civil Code is principally governed by Article 313 of Federal Law No. 5 of 1985. The provision balances two principles: first, that individuals should ordinarily be responsible for their own wrongful acts; and second, that an injured person should have an effective source of compensation where another person had actual authority to supervise and direct the wrongdoer.

The most important requirements are:

Actual authority + supervision/control + subordinate relationship + wrongful act during employment or because of employment + damage + causation.

The UAE case law shows that Article 313 is not limited to simple workplace accidents. It has been applied in disputes involving medical negligence, employee fraud, electronic records, banking-related misconduct and modern commercial relationships. The Dubai Court of Cassation has particularly emphasized that employment can create or facilitate the opportunity for wrongdoing even when the employer did not specifically order or know about the wrongful act.

For examination purposes, the most important authority is Federal Supreme Court Appeal No. 2 of 2009 (General Assembly) because it explains the derivative nature of Article 313 liability, while Dubai Cassation Appeals Nos. 29/2022, 33/2023, 178/2023, 39/2025 and 211/264/2025 demonstrate how the courts apply the requirements of actual control, employment connection, causation and factual proof.