Civil Law and UAE: Proportionality Principle in Civil Cases

1. Meaning of the Proportionality Principle

The proportionality principle means that the legal consequence imposed by a court should be reasonably related to:

the seriousness of the breach;

the actual harm suffered;

the importance of the right being protected;

the purpose of the remedy;

the conduct of the parties; and

the procedural circumstances of the case.

In simple words:

The remedy or procedural measure should not be unnecessarily excessive compared with the problem it is intended to address.

In UAE civil litigation, proportionality can appear in damages, contractual penalties, injunctions, costs, evidence, procedural sanctions, security for costs, enforcement and abuse-of-process decisions.

A particularly developed body of proportionality jurisprudence exists in the DIFC Courts. Those authorities are useful illustrations of the principle, but they should not be treated as binding precedents for mainland UAE courts.

2. Current UAE Legal Framework

A. Federal Civil Procedure Law

The principal procedural framework is Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 on Civil Procedure, together with subsequent amendments.

The court has procedural powers that must be exercised consistently with:

fairness;

judicial efficiency;

prevention of abuse;

proper case management; and

protection of the parties' right to a fair hearing.

B. New UAE Civil Transactions Law

Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025 concerning the Civil Transactions Law entered into force on 1 June 2026. (DIFC Courts)

The new Civil Transactions Law provides the substantive background for questions involving:

compensation;

contractual obligations;

damages;

performance;

liability;

contractual sanctions; and

exercise of civil rights.

Therefore, proportionality should be understood as operating alongside the substantive rules governing the particular claim rather than as an independent formula that automatically determines every case.

C. DIFC procedural framework

The DIFC Courts have expressly developed proportionality through:

case-management powers;

costs rules;

abuse-of-process principles;

disclosure;

security for costs;

sanctions; and

the overriding objective.

For example, DIFC authorities recognise that even where abuse of process is established, the court should consider a proportionate sanction rather than automatically imposing the most severe remedy. (DIFC Courts)

3. Main Areas Where Proportionality Operates

3.1 Proportionality in Damages

Damages should correspond to legally established loss.

A claimant generally cannot obtain compensation that is unrelated to the actual damage caused by the defendant's breach or wrongful act.

The court therefore considers:

Was there a breach?

Did it cause legally recognised damage?

What amount of damage was proved?

Is the claimed loss sufficiently connected with the breach?

Is the requested compensation excessive?

Example

If a contractor causes AED 100,000 of proven damage, a damages award cannot simply be increased to AED 1 million merely because the defendant's conduct was undesirable.

The compensation must have a legal and evidential basis.

4. Proportionality and Contractual Penalties

Contractual penalty clauses are an important area.

Suppose:

Contract price = AED 5 million

Delay = 10 days

Contractual penalty = AED 2 million

The court may have to consider whether the agreed penalty corresponds to the circumstances and the actual legally relevant loss, depending upon the governing UAE law and contractual provisions.

This is different from saying that every penalty must equal actual loss.

The important principle is that contractual sanctions should be examined according to the applicable statutory rules rather than applied mechanically.

5. Proportionality in Procedural Sanctions

A procedural violation does not automatically justify the most severe sanction.

For example, if a party:

produces a document late;

misses a procedural deadline;

fails to comply fully with disclosure;

makes an inadequate application; or

commits a procedural error,

the court may consider whether the problem can be addressed through a less drastic measure.

Possible responses include:

extension of time;

costs;

adverse inference;

additional disclosure;

procedural directions;

limitation of evidence; or

in serious cases, strike-out.

The principle is:

Use the sanction that adequately protects the integrity of the proceedings without unnecessarily destroying a party's substantive claim or defence.

This approach is clearly illustrated by DIFC jurisprudence.

6. Proportionality and Strike-Out

Strike-out is one of the strongest procedural sanctions because it may prevent a party from having its substantive case determined at trial.

In Access Group DWC LLC & Proex Partners Ltd v BLS International FZE [2025] DIFC CFI 091, the DIFC Court explained that even assuming abuse of process, the court must separately identify a proportionate sanction and should strike out only in extreme circumstances where a fair trial cannot properly take place. (DIFC Courts)

This demonstrates an important proportionality rule:

Procedural misconduct → assess prejudice → consider alternatives → select proportionate sanction.

7. Proportionality in Legal Costs

Costs are another major area.

A successful party does not necessarily recover every amount it spent on litigation.

The court may consider:

complexity of the case;

value of the claim;

work reasonably required;

number of issues;

evidence;

experts;

conduct of the parties;

whether costs were unnecessarily incurred.

In Coinmena B.S.C. (C) v Foloosi Technologies Ltd [2026] DIFC CFI 067, the DIFC Court assessed recoverable costs by reference to reasonableness and proportionality and allowed only 60% of the costs claimed in the particular application. (DIFC Courts)

This illustrates that:

Success on an application does not necessarily mean automatic recovery of every expenditure incurred.

8. Proportionality in Security for Costs

Security for costs can protect a defendant from the risk that it will obtain a costs order but be unable to recover it.

However, security should not unnecessarily prevent a genuine claimant from bringing a legitimate case.

In LXT Real Estate Broker LLC v SIR Real Estate LLC [2024] DIFC CFI 073, the DIFC Court considered whether security for costs was necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, including the financial circumstances relied upon by the defendant and whether enforcement of a future costs order would be difficult. (DIFC Courts)

The principle can therefore be expressed as:

Protection of defendant + access to justice + circumstances of the case = proportional security order.

9. Proportionality and Abuse of Process

Courts must prevent litigation from being used improperly.

However, proportionality requires the court to distinguish between:

a genuine claim with a procedural defect; and

genuinely abusive litigation.

In IDBI Bank Ltd v Amira C Foods International DMCC [2020] DIFC CFI 022, the court stressed that the mere fact that a claim could have been brought earlier does not automatically make a later proceeding abusive. The defendant bears the burden of establishing oppression or abuse. (DIFC Courts)

This is important because an overly aggressive application of procedural rules could itself undermine access to justice.

10. Proportionality and Disclosure

Disclosure can become extremely expensive in complex commercial litigation.

A court may therefore consider:

relevance;

materiality;

burden;

cost;

importance of the documents;

availability of alternative evidence.

In The Dubai Financial Services Authority v Commissioner of Data Protection & Anna Waterhouse [2018] DIFC CFI 051/085, the DIFC Court discussed proportionality in relation to data searches and disclosure. The judgment recognised that a balance must be struck between competing rights and interests and that searches should be reasonable and proportionate. (DIFC Courts)

11. Proportionality and Evidence

The principle also affects evidentiary management.

Courts may prevent a case from becoming unnecessarily complicated through:

excessive expert reports;

repetitive witness evidence;

irrelevant documents;

unnecessarily broad disclosure requests;

multiple applications concerning the same issue.

The objective is not to reduce evidence unfairly, but to ensure that evidence is sufficient for determination of the dispute without unnecessary procedural burden.

12. Proportionality and Expert Evidence

Expert evidence can be essential in:

construction disputes;

engineering disputes;

medical claims;

valuation disputes;

financial disputes;

technical and technology cases.

But expert evidence can also substantially increase litigation costs.

A proportionate approach asks:

Is the expert evidence genuinely necessary to decide the issue?

If a simple documentary calculation resolves an issue, appointing several experts may be disproportionate.

13. Proportionality and Injunctions

Interim relief can seriously affect the defendant before the final judgment.

Therefore, courts may consider:

seriousness of the alleged harm;

urgency;

strength of the applicant's case;

availability of damages;

impact on the respondent;

whether the order is wider than necessary.

The injunction should address the identified risk without unnecessarily restricting unrelated activities.

14. Proportionality and Access to Justice

Proportionality must not become a mechanism for preventing genuine claims.

This is particularly important where:

the claim is legally arguable;

the claimant has evidence supporting the claim;

procedural defects can be corrected;

prejudice can be addressed through costs or directions.

In IDBI Bank Ltd v Amira C Foods, the DIFC Court emphasised that an arguable claim should not be prevented from proceeding merely because it could have been presented differently or earlier; actual abuse must be established. (DIFC Courts)

Thus:

Efficiency is important, but efficiency cannot automatically override substantive access to justice.

15. Proportionality and Litigation Conduct

A party's conduct may affect costs and procedural orders.

In AES Middle East Insurance Broker LLC v GSB Capital Ltd [2023] DIFC CFI 060, the court considered allegations of unreasonable conduct, excessive disclosure demands, lack of cooperation and other litigation behaviour. The court did not automatically treat every procedural criticism as sufficient to justify indemnity costs. (DIFC Courts)

This demonstrates that courts distinguish between:

ordinary forensic mistakes;

unreasonable conduct;

serious misconduct; and

abuse of process.

The consequence should correspond to the seriousness of the conduct.

16. Important UAE/DIFC Case Laws

Jurisdictional caution: Most of the reported authorities above are DIFC Courts cases. They are persuasive illustrations of proportionality within the UAE legal environment, but DIFC precedent should not be described as binding precedent on mainland UAE courts.

17. Proportionality Test in UAE Civil Litigation

A practical proportionality analysis can be organised into six questions:

Step 1 — Identify the legitimate objective

What is the court trying to achieve?

For example:

protect evidence;

prevent abuse;

compensate loss;

enforce an obligation;

control costs.

Step 2 — Identify the seriousness of the problem

Was there:

minor procedural error?

moderate prejudice?

serious misconduct?

deliberate abuse?

Step 3 — Measure prejudice

What actual prejudice has been caused to the other party or the administration of justice?

Step 4 — Consider alternatives

Could the problem be addressed by:

costs;

additional evidence;

an extension;

adverse inference;

narrower disclosure;

procedural directions?

Step 5 — Select the appropriate remedy

The court chooses a remedy sufficiently strong to address the problem.

Step 6 — Avoid excessive consequences

The remedy should not go further than reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

18. Proportionality vs Equality

These concepts should not be confused.

Equality

Means treating similarly situated parties similarly.

Proportionality

Means matching the legal response to the circumstances.

For example, two parties may commit different procedural violations. Treating both identically may actually be disproportionate if one violation causes substantial prejudice and the other causes almost none.

19. Proportionality vs Discretion

Judicial discretion does not mean unlimited discretion.

A court exercising discretion should consider:

relevant facts;

applicable law;

purpose of the procedural power;

prejudice;

alternatives;

interests of justice.

Proportionality provides a discipline for the exercise of that discretion.

20. Practical Examples

Example 1 — Late document

A defendant produces one relevant document two days late.

Possible proportionate response:

allow the document;

give the claimant additional time;

award appropriate costs.

Automatically striking out the entire defence may be disproportionate if the delay causes no irremediable prejudice.

Example 2 — Deliberate destruction of evidence

A party deliberately destroys central evidence after litigation begins.

This is substantially more serious.

Possible consequences can include:

adverse inference;

costs;

evidentiary sanctions;

other procedural consequences permitted by law.

The seriousness of the conduct changes the proportionality analysis.

Example 3 — Excessive disclosure

A claimant demands millions of documents when only a small category is relevant.

The court may narrow the disclosure obligation rather than allowing unlimited disclosure.

Example 4 — Security for costs

A defendant requests very substantial security in a modest claim.

The court may examine whether the amount requested is reasonably related to the actual costs risk.

Example 5 — Abuse of process

A party repeatedly brings substantially identical proceedings for an improper purpose.

A stronger sanction may become proportionate because repeated litigation imposes serious prejudice on the opposing party and consumes judicial resources.

21. Key Principles

The proportionality principle in UAE civil cases can be summarised as follows:

Legal consequences should correspond to the seriousness of the conduct.

Damages should have a legal and evidentiary connection to the loss.

Procedural sanctions should not automatically be excessive.

Strike-out is generally a severe remedy and requires careful justification.

Costs should be controlled according to the applicable costs regime.

Security for costs should balance protection of the defendant with access to justice.

Disclosure should be sufficiently broad for a fair trial but not unnecessarily burdensome.

Expert evidence should be controlled where excessive.

Abuse of process should be distinguished from ordinary procedural mistakes.

Efficiency cannot automatically override a genuine right to have an arguable case heard.

The seriousness of actual prejudice is important.

Less restrictive alternatives should be considered where appropriate.

22. Proportionality Formula

A useful exam formula is:

**Legitimate Objective

Seriousness of Conduct

Actual Prejudice

Importance of the Right

Available Alternatives
= Proportionate Civil Remedy**

Or, more simply:

Proportionality = Appropriate Objective + Necessary Measure + Balanced Consequence − Excessive Burden

23. Short Exam Answer

The proportionality principle in UAE civil law requires courts to ensure that remedies, procedural sanctions, costs and other judicial measures are reasonably related to the seriousness of the breach, actual prejudice, purpose of the legal rule and circumstances of the case. It prevents excessive sanctions and supports fair and efficient administration of justice. Proportionality is particularly important in procedural matters such as strike-out, disclosure, security for costs, costs orders and abuse of process. DIFC decisions such as Access Group v BLS International, Coinmena v Foloosi, LXT Real Estate Broker v SIR Real Estate, IDBI Bank v Amira C Foods and DFSA v Commissioner of Data Protection illustrate the principle in practice. However, DIFC authorities must be distinguished from binding mainland UAE precedent. The fundamental objective is to achieve a fair balance between enforcement of legal rights, prevention of abuse, access to justice and efficient use of judicial resources.

Conclusion

The proportionality principle is an important control on the exercise of civil and procedural powers in the UAE. It does not mean that courts must always choose the least severe outcome. Rather, the response should be appropriate to the objective, justified by the circumstances and not unnecessarily excessive.

In practical terms, UAE civil litigation increasingly reflects the idea that fair justice requires both protection of substantive rights and proportionate procedural management. The DIFC case law provides particularly clear examples of this approach, while mainland UAE courts must primarily apply the applicable federal and emirate-specific legislation and their own binding jurisprudence.