Civil Law and UAE: Restitution vs Damages Boundary Doctrines

1. Introduction

The boundary between restitution and damages is an important issue in UAE civil law.

Although both remedies may result in a monetary payment, they perform different legal functions:

Restitution generally seeks to reverse an enrichment, restore a benefit, return property or money, or undo the consequences of an ineffective transaction.

Damages/compensation seek to compensate the injured party for loss caused by a breach of contract, unlawful act, or other legally actionable conduct.

Restitution focuses principally on the benefit received or retained.

Damages focus principally on the loss suffered by the claimant.

This distinction becomes particularly important where a contract is void, avoided, rescinded or terminated, or where the same conduct gives rise to both an enrichment claim and a claim for damages.

Under the UAE civil-law framework, compensation is ordinarily assessed by reference to actual legally recoverable harm. The current Civil Transactions Law also provides that, where compensation is not fixed by law or agreement, the court assesses compensation according to the damage actually sustained.

The DIFC Courts, applying both DIFC legislation and UAE Civil Code principles in appropriate cases, have developed particularly useful jurisprudence explaining the boundary between these two remedies.

2. Meaning of Restitution

Restitution is principally a restorative remedy.

Its objective is normally to reverse a transfer of value or prevent one party from retaining a benefit where there is no sufficient legal basis for doing so.

Examples include:

return of money paid under a void contract;

return of property transferred under a transaction that is avoided;

recovery of property obtained without legal justification;

repayment following failure of consideration;

restoration following certain forms of rescission or termination;

recovery based on unjust enrichment.

The central question is generally:

What benefit has the defendant received or retained which, in the circumstances, should be restored?

This differs from the question asked in a damages claim:

What legally compensable loss has the claimant suffered because of the defendant's breach or wrongful act?

3. Meaning of Damages

Damages are primarily compensatory.

They seek to place the injured person, so far as money can do so, in the position required by the applicable legal measure of compensation.

Depending upon the cause of action, damages may include:

actual financial loss;

loss of profit;

consequential loss;

certain future losses;

moral damage where legally recoverable;

expenses caused by the breach or wrongful act;

other losses satisfying causation and remoteness requirements.

The current UAE Civil Transactions Law provides that, where compensation is not determined by law or contract, the court assesses it according to the damage actually sustained. It also regulates agreed compensation and permits judicial reduction in specified circumstances.

Therefore, damages are not automatically equal to the amount originally paid under a contract.

4. Core Boundary Between Restitution and Damages

5. Restitution Does Not Automatically Mean Damages

A claimant may sometimes plead:

restitution;

damages;

compensation;

unjust enrichment;

in the alternative.

However, success on one remedy does not necessarily establish entitlement to all of them.

For example, suppose A pays AED 1 million under a contract that is later declared void.

If A is entitled to restitution, A may recover the AED 1 million, subject to adjustments.

But A does not automatically receive another AED 500,000 representing the profit A hoped to make from the transaction.

Why?

Because restitution is concerned with reversing the original transfer. The hypothetical profit is ordinarily a loss-based claim, and requires an independent legal basis for damages.

This principle was expressly illustrated in Gjurd v Gizella (DIFC) Limited [2016] DIFC SCT 081. The DIFC Small Claims Tribunal treated restitution as restoring the claimant's investment after the contract was void for mistake, but rejected the additional claim for the profit that would allegedly have been earned under a properly structured investment.

6. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment

Under the UAE civil-law tradition, unjust enrichment provides an important basis for restitution.

The traditional structure involves:

enrichment of one person;

corresponding impoverishment or detriment to another;

absence of a sufficient legal basis for the enrichment;

a legally recognized basis for requiring restoration.

In Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & Others [2019] DIFC CFI 054, the DIFC Court dealt extensively with restitutionary claims under Articles 318, 319 and 324 of the UAE Civil Code.

The case is especially important because the Court distinguished restitution from damages. It considered claims for the actual return of bonds and money separately from claims for damages arising from deceitful conduct. The Court also emphasized that a claimant cannot recover both the property itself and its monetary equivalent where that would constitute double recovery.

Principle

Restitution follows the benefit or property that should be restored; damages follow the compensable loss caused by the wrongful conduct.

7. Restitution After Invalidity of Contract

When a contract is invalid or void, the normal conceptual problem is that there may be no valid contractual basis for retaining what was transferred.

Consequently, restoration may become necessary.

For example:

A pays B AED 500,000 under a contract subsequently held void.

Potential consequences:

B may have to return AED 500,000;

A may have to return property or benefits received from B;

the court may make appropriate monetary adjustments where exact restoration is impossible;

consequential losses require a separate damages analysis.

The important point is that restitution does not transform every invalid contract into a damages claim.

The parties may have to return what they received even though neither party is awarded hypothetical contractual profits.

8. Restitution After Termination

Termination and restitution must also be distinguished from damages.

Under DIFC Contract Law Article 90, termination in the circumstances specified by the legislation can result in restitution of what has been supplied, subject to concurrent restoration and appropriate monetary adjustment where restitution in kind is impossible or inappropriate.

This creates three conceptually different questions:

Question 1 — Was termination lawful?

This concerns the contractual right to terminate.

Question 2 — What must be restored?

This concerns restitution.

Question 3 — What additional loss resulted from the breach?

This concerns damages.

A claimant therefore cannot assume that proving breach automatically establishes a restitutionary entitlement, or that obtaining restitution automatically establishes entitlement to damages.

9. Boundary Doctrine: Defendant's Gain vs Claimant's Loss

This is the most useful examination distinction.

Restitution

The court asks:

What did the defendant receive or retain?

Damages

The court asks:

What did the claimant lose because of the defendant's legally actionable conduct?

For example:

A pays B AED 2 million for property.

The transaction fails and the money must be returned.

Restitution

B returns AED 2 million.

Damages

If A can independently establish additional loss caused by B's wrongful conduct—such as a legally recoverable consequential loss—that may be considered as damages.

The two calculations must not overlap.

10. Case Law

Case 1: Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & Others [2019] DIFC CFI 054

Importance

This is one of the most useful cases for explaining the boundary between restitution and damages under UAE civil-law principles.

Larmag alleged that bonds had been fraudulently transferred.

It pursued both:

restitution of the bonds or their value; and

damages resulting from the alleged wrongdoing.

The Court considered UAE Civil Code provisions concerning restitution, including Articles 318, 319 and 324.

The judgment recognized the importance of distinguishing the actual restoration of property from compensation for damage.

Importantly, the Court stated that where the claimant receives damages for the same wrongful deprivation, it cannot additionally receive a monetary substitute for the same property because that would result in double recovery.

Principle

Restitution and damages may coexist conceptually, but recovery must be structured so that the claimant is not compensated twice for the same loss.

11. Case 2: Gjurd v Gizella (DIFC) Limited [2016] DIFC SCT 081

This case concerned an investment product affected by mistake.

The DIFC Court found the contract void because of the mistake and applied the restitutionary consequences under the DIFC Contract Law.

The claimant had invested USD 80,000.

The Court calculated restitution by returning the investment while deducting amounts already received by the claimant through coupons and redemption.

The claimant also sought an additional USD 10,000 representing the profit that would allegedly have been earned from the correct investment.

That additional lost-profit claim was rejected.

The reasoning is particularly important:

restitution restored the investment;

hypothetical profit belonged to the damages/loss analysis;

the claimant could not obtain hypothetical profits through a restitution calculation.

The Court ultimately ordered AED 211,710.14 in restitution, corresponding to the investment less returns already received.

Principle

Restitution normally restores the transferred benefit; it does not automatically include profits that the claimant might have earned if the transaction had been performed differently.

12. Case 3: DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited v Youssef Issa Ward [2015] DIFC CA 006

This is a leading DIFC authority on the limits of restitution.

Mr Ward sought the return of amounts paid in connection with a property reservation agreement and relied upon both damages and restitution.

The Court of Appeal rejected the restitutionary claim.

It explained that unjust enrichment requires more than enrichment alone. The enrichment must be accompanied by an unjust factor.

The Court also held that Article 90 of the DIFC Contract Law did not permit a party who had not lawfully terminated the contract to use restitution opportunistically.

The Court therefore distinguished:

lawful termination;

contractual restitution;

unjust enrichment;

damages.

Principle

A defendant's enrichment is not automatically unjust, and a claimant cannot convert an unsuccessful breach/termination claim into a restitutionary claim merely because money has been paid.

13. Case 4: Youssef Issa Ward v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited [2014] DIFC CFI 001

At first instance, the Court found that the termination of the reservation agreement was unlawful and ordered restitution of AED 2,626,335.

The judgment relied upon Article 48 of the DIFC Damages and Remedies Law and Article 90 of the DIFC Contract Law.

The case demonstrates how restitution can become available when termination is legally justified and the defendant has retained payments that should be restored.

However, the decision must be read together with the subsequent Court of Appeal decision in DAMAC Park Towers v Ward [2015] DIFC CA 006, which reversed the first-instance approach.

Principle

A restitutionary award depends upon the legal basis for termination and enrichment; a first-instance restitution award may be overturned where the underlying contractual entitlement is found to be different on appeal.

14. Case 5: Amit Dattani, Nitin Jobanputra, Masood ur Rahman & Shemhon Iftakhar v DAMAC Park Towers Company Limited [2012] DIFC CFI 034

The claimants sought restitution of amounts paid under a property-related contractual arrangement.

The Court considered Article 90 of the DIFC Contract Law and concluded that restitution was available following the relevant termination.

The case is useful because it demonstrates the connection between:

termination;

amounts supplied under the contract;

restoration;

the absence of a need to transform the entire claim into conventional damages.

The Court treated repayment of sums paid as the appropriate restitutionary consequence in the circumstances.

Principle

Where the applicable contractual regime expressly provides for restitution following lawful termination, restoration of payments may be available independently of an ordinary loss-of-profit calculation.

15. Case 6: Basin Supply Corporation v Rouge LLC & Claude Barret [2018] DIFC CFI 057

Basin Supply involved claims concerning a loan and the legal basis upon which money had been transferred.

The Court considered potential unjust factors including:

mistake;

failure of consideration;

payment pursuant to a void agreement.

The case is important because it shows that restitution can be based on the absence or failure of the legal basis for the transfer rather than simply on proof that the claimant suffered commercial loss.

Principle

The restitutionary inquiry examines why the defendant's enrichment is legally unjustified; it is not merely a calculation of the claimant's commercial loss.

16. Case 7: Ahmed Mohamed Abdel Aziz Saleh v Chartis Memsa Insurance Company [2011] DIFC CFI 021

This case demonstrates another important boundary.

The claimant attempted to characterize certain remuneration/overtime allegations as restitution or quantum meruit.

The Court considered Article 48 of the DIFC Damages and Remedies Law and rejected the restitutionary characterization where the existing employment contract already provided the relevant remuneration structure and the alleged additional entitlement was insufficiently established.

The case illustrates that not every unpaid or disputed monetary claim is a restitution claim.

Principle

A claimant cannot use restitution merely as an alternative label for a contractual payment claim where the legal basis for the alleged entitlement is absent.

17. Case 8: Globemed Gulf Healthcare Solutions LLC v Oman Insurance Company PSC [2017] DIFC CFI 051

This case is especially useful for understanding the damages side of the boundary.

The Court considered a claim for lost profits under a contract governed by UAE law.

It discussed UAE Supreme Court and Dubai Court of Cassation principles concerning future loss and lost earnings.

The Court noted that recoverable future loss must be established rather than merely speculative, and referred to Dubai Court of Cassation Cases Nos. 46 and 49 of 2006 concerning actual damage and reasonably supported loss of earnings.

Principle

Damages require proof of legally recoverable loss; speculative future profits do not automatically become recoverable merely because a contract was breached.

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

Hexagon claimed both:

damages, including reliance and expectation losses; and

restitution.

The Court separately analyzed the two remedies.

For damages, it considered the contractual loss framework, including expectation and reliance loss.

For restitution, it asked whether the defendants had been unjustly enriched at Hexagon's expense.

The Court ultimately rejected both forms of recovery on the facts.

Particularly important was the Court's conclusion that Hexagon's alleged lost opportunity did not constitute an enrichment of the defendants. Therefore, the restitutionary claim could not simply be used as an alternative method of recovering the same alleged economic loss.

Principle

A claimant cannot turn its own loss of an opportunity into restitution unless the defendant has obtained a corresponding unjust enrichment recognized by law.

19. The "No Double Recovery" Doctrine

The boundary between restitution and damages is strongly reinforced by the principle against double recovery.

Suppose:

A transfers property worth AED 10 million to B;

B wrongfully retains it;

A claims restitution of the property;

A also claims AED 10 million as damages representing the value of the same property.

A court should not ordinarily award both the property and its full monetary value for the same deprivation.

This principle is clearly illustrated by Larmag.

The claimant may potentially seek alternative remedies, but the ultimate recovery must correspond to the legally established injury and/or unjust enrichment rather than producing a windfall.

20. Restitution vs Expectation Damages

This distinction is particularly important in contract law.

Restitution

Attempts to reverse the transaction.

Example:

A pays AED 1 million.

The contract is avoided.

A seeks:

AED 1 million back.

Expectation damages

Attempt to provide the benefit of the bargain.

Example:

A would have received property worth AED 1.5 million after paying AED 1 million.

If the legal requirements for expectation damages are satisfied, A may potentially claim the appropriate difference.

These remedies have different objectives.

Restitution

"Give back what was transferred."

Expectation damages

"Compensate me for the value of the contractual performance I should have received."

They should not be confused.

21. Restitution vs Reliance Damages

Reliance damages compensate expenditure or loss incurred because the claimant relied on the contract or representation.

Example:

A spends AED 300,000 preparing for a project in reliance upon B's contractual commitment.

If B's breach legally caused the expenditure to become wasted, the expenditure may potentially form part of a damages claim.

Restitution, by contrast, asks whether B must restore a benefit B received from A.

Therefore:

A's expenditure ≠ automatically B's enrichment.

This is why a claimant must identify the correct juridical basis for the claim.

22. Restitution vs Lost Profits

Lost profits are ordinarily associated with damages rather than basic restitution.

For example:

A pays AED 1 million under an investment contract.

The contract becomes void.

A may be entitled to:

return of AED 1 million through restitution.

But A cannot automatically claim:

AED 300,000 hypothetical investment profits.

The additional AED 300,000 requires a separate legal basis and proof.

This was expressly demonstrated in Gjurd v Gizella, where the Court awarded restitution but rejected the claimed additional lost profit.

23. Restitution and Moral Damage

Moral damage belongs primarily to the compensatory side of the remedies system.

Where the applicable UAE law recognizes injury to matters such as:

dignity;

honour;

reputation;

social standing;

compensation may be available where the legal requirements are satisfied.

This is conceptually different from restitution because moral injury normally does not represent a benefit unjustly retained by the defendant.

Thus:

Reputation injury → potentially damages.

Money unjustly retained → potentially restitution.

The two may arise from the same factual episode but remain legally distinct.

24. Restitution and Fraud

Fraud can produce both types of remedy.

Example:

B fraudulently induces A to transfer AED 2 million.

Possible restitutionary remedy:

return of the AED 2 million or identifiable property.

Possible damages:

additional loss directly caused by the fraud, if legally recoverable and proved.

However, A should not recover the same AED 2 million twice.

The Larmag litigation provides a useful illustration of the need to separate restoration of property from damages resulting from wrongful conduct.

25. Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Are Not Identical to Damages

A major doctrinal mistake is to assume:

"The defendant caused my loss, therefore I have a restitution claim."

That is incorrect.

A restitutionary claim asks whether the defendant has obtained an unjustified benefit.

A damages claim asks whether the defendant's actionable conduct caused compensable harm.

There may be:

Loss without enrichment

A suffers AED 500,000 loss, but B obtains no corresponding benefit.

This may support damages but not necessarily restitution.

Enrichment without claimant's loss in the relevant sense

B receives a benefit, but there is no legally recognized unjust factor.

Restitution may fail.

Both loss and enrichment

A's money is wrongfully transferred to B.

Both doctrines may potentially be relevant, but the claimant must establish the requirements of each and cannot recover twice for the same injury.

26. Boundary in Invalid Contracts

When a contract is invalid:

Step 1 — Determine validity

Was the contract:

void;

voidable;

rescinded;

terminated;

merely breached?

Step 2 — Determine restoration

What did each party receive?

Step 3 — Apply restitution

What must be returned?

Step 4 — Examine damages separately

Did an actionable wrong produce additional legally compensable loss?

Step 5 — Prevent double recovery

The claimant should not obtain overlapping awards for the same economic injury.

This structured approach is particularly useful in UAE property, investment, construction and commercial disputes.

27. Boundary in Termination Disputes

A claimant should distinguish:

Wrongful termination → breach issue

Return of payments → restitution issue

Additional commercial loss → damages issue

For example:

A developer unlawfully terminates a purchaser's agreement after the purchaser has paid AED 1 million.

Potential claims may include:

restitution of AED 1 million;

damages caused by the unlawful termination;

interest where legally available;

other proven consequential losses.

But each head must have an independent legal basis.

The Ward litigation demonstrates why the legality of termination is central to a restitution claim under the DIFC contractual framework.

28. Boundary in Unjust Enrichment

A useful analytical formula is:

Restitution

Enrichment + legally unjust factor + appropriate restoration

Damages

Actionable wrong + causation + legally recoverable damage

The formulas should not be mechanically applied to every UAE dispute, because the precise requirements depend upon the governing legislation and cause of action.

Nevertheless, they provide a useful doctrinal framework.

29. Restitutionary Interest vs Damages Interest

Interest can also create confusion.

Where money is restored, the court may have to determine whether interest is payable on the amount restored.

That does not necessarily convert the underlying claim into damages.

Similarly, interest awarded on a damages judgment does not transform the damages into restitution.

The Ward and Dattani cases demonstrate how interest can be considered alongside restitutionary monetary awards under the DIFC framework.

30. Restitution Where Performance Is Impossible

Sometimes the original benefit cannot be returned.

For example:

goods have been consumed;

property has been transferred to a third party;

services have already been performed;

money has been mixed with other assets.

The applicable law may therefore require a monetary equivalent or another form of restoration.

This does not necessarily make the remedy damages.

A monetary payment can still be restitutionary if it represents the value of the benefit that must be restored.

This is an important examination point:

A monetary award is not automatically damages.

The legal character of the award depends on what the money is intended to accomplish.

31. "Money Award" Does Not Mean "Damages"

This is perhaps the most important boundary doctrine.

AED 1 million returned because the defendant had no legal basis to retain it

= potentially restitution.

AED 1 million awarded because the claimant lost AED 1 million through a breach

= potentially damages.

AED 1 million representing the value of property that must be restored

= potentially restitutionary monetary relief.

Therefore, courts should look at the legal basis and purpose of the award rather than simply its monetary form.

32. Burden of Proof

The claimant normally must establish the factual and legal foundation of the remedy sought.

For restitution, relevant evidence may include:

bank transfers;

payment receipts;

contracts;

property-transfer records;

ownership documents;

evidence of mistake;

evidence of failure of consideration;

evidence of unjust enrichment;

tracing evidence.

For damages, evidence may include:

invoices;

financial statements;

expert valuation;

lost-profit calculations;

business records;

evidence of causation;

evidence of future loss;

evidence of consequential expenses.

The evidential inquiry therefore differs according to the remedy.

33. Role of Causation

Causation is particularly central to damages.

A claimant must generally demonstrate that the claimed damage resulted from the defendant's actionable conduct in accordance with the governing legal rules.

The UAE-law discussion in Globemed illustrates the importance of establishing actual or sufficiently certain future loss rather than merely possible loss. The case referred to UAE Supreme Court and Dubai Court of Cassation principles requiring recoverable future loss to be established rather than merely speculative.

Restitution has a different emphasis.

The question may instead be:

Did the defendant receive a benefit that the law requires to be restored?

34. Role of Foreseeability and Remoteness

These concepts are particularly important in damages.

A claimant may suffer numerous consequences following a breach, but not every consequence will necessarily be legally recoverable.

Restitution does not ordinarily operate through the same loss-based analysis.

For example:

A transfers AED 1 million without legal justification.

Restitution focuses on the AED 1 million benefit.

Damages may require a separate inquiry into:

what additional loss occurred;

whether it was caused by the wrong;

whether it is legally recoverable;

whether it is sufficiently established.

35. Contractual Clauses and Agreed Compensation

The UAE Civil Transactions framework also recognizes contractual arrangements concerning compensation, subject to statutory controls.

The current legislation provides that parties may pre-determine compensation, while giving the court powers to reduce agreed compensation in specified circumstances, including excessive assessment or partial performance, and addresses situations involving contributory fault, fraud and gross fault.

This is generally a damages/compensation issue rather than restitution.

A contractual liquidated-damages clause does not normally convert a claim for return of an unjustly retained payment into a restitutionary claim.

36. The Doctrine of Alternative Pleading

A claimant may sometimes plead:

"I seek restitution; alternatively, damages."

This is sensible where the legal characterization of the transaction is disputed.

For example:

If the contract is void → restitution may follow.

If the contract is valid but breached → damages may be the principal remedy.

If the defendant's enrichment is unjust → restitution may be available.

If the conduct independently caused additional loss → damages may also arise.

The court must identify the correct legal basis rather than awarding overlapping remedies automatically.

37. Practical UAE Litigation Test

When analyzing a UAE restitution-versus-damages dispute, ask these questions in order:

Question 1

What is the legal status of the transaction?

valid;

void;

voidable;

rescinded;

terminated?

Question 2

What did each party receive?

Question 3

Does one party currently retain a benefit that lacks a sufficient legal basis?

Question 4

What loss did the claimant actually suffer?

Question 5

Is the claim based upon:

unjust enrichment;

invalidity;

breach;

tort;

fraud;

mistake;

termination?

Question 6

Can the benefit itself be restored?

Question 7

If not, what monetary equivalent represents the benefit?

Question 8

Are there additional damages independent of the restored benefit?

Question 9

Would the proposed award duplicate another award?

Question 10

What is the governing jurisdiction?

This last question is particularly important because UAE mainland law, DIFC law and ADGM law are not interchangeable.

38. Mainland UAE vs DIFC

A major caution is necessary.

The cases discussed above include substantial DIFC Court jurisprudence.

DIFC Courts apply DIFC legislation in matters falling within their jurisdiction, although cases such as Larmag have also considered provisions of UAE federal civil law.

Therefore:

a DIFC Contract Law Article 90 case should not automatically be presented as a Federal Supreme Court precedent under mainland UAE law;

DIFC restitution principles should not automatically be treated as identical to UAE federal civil-law principles;

UAE Civil Transactions Law provisions should be analyzed separately when the dispute is governed by mainland UAE law.

This distinction is essential in legal research.

39. Comparative Case-Law Principles

40. Important Doctrinal Rules

The following rules provide a useful examination summary:

Rule 1

Restitution is restoration; damages are compensation.

Rule 2

The existence of a monetary award does not determine whether the remedy is restitution or damages.

Rule 3

Restitution focuses principally on the benefit received or retained.

Rule 4

Damages focus principally on legally recoverable loss.

Rule 5

Unjust enrichment requires more than proof of enrichment alone.

Rule 6

A claimant cannot ordinarily recover both the property and its full monetary equivalent for the same deprivation.

Rule 7

Lost profits generally require a separate damages analysis.

Rule 8

Restitution following termination depends upon the governing legal framework and the legal basis for termination.

Rule 9

A claimant cannot use restitution merely as a different label for an unsuccessful damages claim.

Rule 10

Double recovery is prohibited.

41. Simple Example for Examination

Assume A pays B AED 2 million for a contract that is later declared void.

Restitution

B may have to return:

AED 2 million

because B no longer has a sufficient legal basis for retaining the money.

Damages

A additionally claims AED 700,000 for lost business opportunities.

That claim is not automatically part of restitution.

A must establish:

an actionable legal wrong;

causation;

legally recoverable damage;

sufficient proof of the alleged loss.

Final distinction

AED 2 million return = potentially restitution.

AED 700,000 additional loss = potentially damages.

The two claims must not overlap.

42. Conclusion

The restitution-versus-damages boundary is fundamentally a distinction between two different remedial objectives.

Restitution asks:

What benefit should be restored because the defendant has no sufficient legal basis to retain it?

Damages ask:

What legally compensable loss has the claimant suffered because of the defendant's breach or wrongful act?

UAE civil-law disputes frequently require both questions to be examined separately.

The most important practical principles are:

invalidity may trigger restoration;

unjust enrichment may support restitution;

breach may support damages;

lost profits generally belong to the damages analysis;

restitution can be monetary without becoming damages;

enrichment alone does not necessarily establish restitution;

the claimant must establish the relevant legal basis for each remedy;

restitution and damages can sometimes be pleaded alternatively;

the same economic injury cannot ordinarily be recovered twice; and

mainland UAE, DIFC and ADGM regimes must be kept doctrinally separate.

For examination purposes, the simplest formula is:

Restitution follows the benefit; damages follow the loss.

The Larmag, Gjurd, Ward, Dattani, Basin Supply, Ahmed Saleh, Globemed and Hexagon decisions collectively demonstrate how UAE-related courts distinguish these two remedial concepts and prevent restitution from becoming an unrestricted substitute for damages.