A recent judgment in Case No. 162 of 2026 (Commercial), the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation has provided important clarification on the procedural requirements for filing an appeal under the UAE Civil Procedure Law, particularly after the amendment introduced by Federal Decree Law No. 22 of 2025. In Case No. 162 of 2026 (Commercial), decided on 18 March 2026, the Court examined whether an appeal may be rejected merely because the grounds stated in the statement of appeal were considered too general or insufficiently detailed.
The dispute itself arose out of a construction matter. One party had filed a claim seeking compensation in the amount of AED 300,000, alleging delay, poor workmanship, and defects in execution, together with legal interest. The opposing party filed a counterclaim for AED 961,722.10 plus legal interest. After expert proceedings, the court of first instance dismissed the original claim and partially upheld the counterclaim, ordering payment of AED 265,740.38 with interest. Both sides then filed appeals, but the Court of Appeal joined the appeals and ruled on 21 January 2026 that both appeals were inadmissible. The matter then proceeded to the Court of Cassation.
The central legal issue before the Court of Cassation was not the underlying construction dispute itself, but the procedural meaning of the amended Article 164. The appellate court had taken the view that, after the 2025 amendment, the reasons of appeal had to be set out in a detailed and precise manner in the appeal statement itself, and that broad phrases such as error in applying the law, deficient reasoning, or breach of the right of defence were not enough. Based on that understanding, it held that the two appeals were inadmissible for lack of sufficiently detailed grounds.
The Court of Cassation disagreed with that interpretation. It began by reaffirming a fundamental principle of UAE civil procedure: an appeal is a continuation of the original dispute before a higher court, and the appellate court is a court of merits, not merely a court of procedural review. Once an appeal is properly filed, the dispute is transferred to the appellate court within the limits of what is challenged, and that court is empowered to consider the factual and legal aspects of the case, including new defences, new arguments, and new evidence, within the permissible scope of appellate review.
This principle was especially important because the Court considered that the amendment to Article 164 should not be read in isolation. The amended text now requires that the appeal statement include the appealed judgment, its date, the requests, and the reasons for appeal; otherwise, the appeal will be inadmissible. However, according to the Court of Cassation, this amendment was intended to change the timing for submitting reasons of appeal, not to transform the legal nature of an appeal into something resembling a cassation petition. The legislature abolished the previous grace period that had allowed an appellant to submit reasons by the first hearing, but it did not create a new rule requiring the same level of technical detail demanded in cassation proceedings.
The Court made a significant distinction between two concepts: the requirement that grounds of appeal must exist and be disclosed, and the idea that they must be stated with exhaustive detail. In the Court’s view, Article 164 imposes a requirement of identification, not exhaustive elaboration. In other words, the appeal statement must reveal the areas of dissatisfaction with the judgment and the basis of challenge, but the law does not expressly require every ground to be articulated with the same precision and depth that is required in a petition before the Court of Cassation.
The judgment also emphasized that an overly strict interpretation would undermine the transferring effect of appeal. If appellate grounds had to be pleaded at the outset with the same level of strict formulation required for cassation, then appeal would lose its essential function as a merits-based remedy. That would contradict Article 167 of the Civil Procedure Law, which provides that the appellate court examines the case on the basis of what is submitted to it, including new evidence, new defences, and matters already raised before the court of first instance. The Court therefore rejected any interpretation that would reduce appeal to a narrow technical review limited by rigid drafting formulas.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that the appellant had in fact stated reasons in the appeal statement. Those reasons included allegations of violation of law, error in application of law, inadequate reasoning, breach of the right of defence, and contradiction with the documents on record. The Court held that these reasons were sufficient to identify the scope of grievance and the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the first-instance judgment. Therefore, the appeal should have been admitted and examined on the merits rather than dismissed on formal grounds.
Accordingly, the Court of Cassation ruled that the appellate judgment had erred in law by equating the amendment of Article 164 with a new requirement of detailed pleading comparable to cassation standards. It held that the Court of Appeal had failed to give proper effect to the nature of appeal and had wrongly declared the appeals inadmissible. As a result, the Court partially quashed the appealed judgment and referred Appeal No. 33 of 2026 Commercial Abu Dhabi back to the Court of Appeal, to be heard before a different bench, while also ordering costs and the return of the security deposit to the appellant.
From a practical legal perspective, this judgment is highly significant for litigants and practitioners in the UAE. It confirms that, after the 2025 amendment, an appellant must indeed include grounds of appeal in the appeal statement from the outset. A party can no longer rely on the old practice of postponing the filing of reasons until the first session. However, this does not mean that the statement of appeal must read like a cassation memorandum. What is required is that the grounds be sufficiently clear to disclose the legal and factual areas being challenged. The emphasis is on substance and procedural order, not excessive formalism.
This ruling therefore strikes a careful balance between procedural discipline and access to justice. On one hand, it respects the legislative intent behind the amendment by requiring appellants to file their reasons at the time of lodging the appeal. On the other hand, it prevents lower courts from using the amended text to impose an artificially high threshold that could block appeals for purely formal reasons. The judgment reflects a broader judicial approach that procedural rules should serve the fair and efficient administration of justice, rather than operate as traps that defeat substantive rights.
In conclusion, Case No. 162 of 2026 is an important authority on the procedural law of appeals in the UAE. It clarifies that the amendment to Article 164 changed when the grounds of appeal must be filed, but not how technically elaborate they must be. As long as the appeal statement identifies the basis of challenge in a manner that allows the court and the opposing party to understand the dispute, the appeal should proceed to consideration on the merits. This judgment will likely be relied upon in future cases where parties challenge dismissals of appeals based on alleged insufficiency or generality of the stated grounds.
If you require further clarification or legal assistance concerning the matters discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Khairallah Advocates & Legal Consultants LLC. Our lawyers would be happy to assist you.
Authors:
