Introduction
Timely payment is the foundation upon which commercial relationships are built. Whether in construction projects, supply contracts, service agreements, or commercial transactions, parties rely upon the expectation that contractual payments will be made when due. Delayed payment not only disrupts cash flow but can significantly affect business operations, profitability, financing obligations, and commercial stability.
In a landmark judgment issued on 20 January 2026, the UAE Federal Supreme Court reaffirmed an important principle of UAE civil liability law: a debtor’s unjustified delay in paying amounts lawfully due constitutes a wrongful act that may give rise to a separate claim for compensation, even where the creditor ultimately recovers the principal debt.
The judgment, rendered in Commercial Appeals Nos. 983 and 991 of 2025, provides valuable guidance on the interaction between contractual obligations, civil liability, and compensation for damages arising from delayed payment. The decision is particularly significant for the construction sector, where disputes concerning delayed certification and payment of subcontractors frequently arise.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose from a construction project involving a principal contractor, a subcontractor, and the project owner.
The claimant, acting as a subcontractor, entered into a subcontract agreement to perform earthworks and construction-related works forming part of a major road infrastructure project. The total contractual value exceeded AED 2.8 million. Under the contractual payment mechanism, completed works were to be measured, certified, and submitted through the principal contractor, following which the project owner would make payment directly to the subcontractor.
The subcontractor completed the assigned works and issued the relevant invoices. While one payment was made, substantial amounts remained outstanding despite repeated demands and the completion of the contractual works. The principal contractor subsequently terminated the subcontract agreement, prompting the subcontractor to commence legal proceedings seeking payment of the outstanding sums together with compensation for material and moral damages arising from the delay.
Following expert proceedings, the Court of First Instance ordered the defendants to pay the subcontractor AED 978,161.69. However, the courts refused the subcontractor’s claim for compensation on the basis that no independent documentary evidence had been submitted proving specific losses caused by the delayed payment.
The matter ultimately reached the Federal Supreme Court.
The Legal Issue Before the Court
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether a creditor who successfully proves entitlement to outstanding contractual payments must additionally provide separate documentary evidence of damage in order to recover compensation arising from delayed payment.
More specifically, the Court considered whether the unjustified withholding of money lawfully due to a creditor is itself sufficient to establish compensable damage.
The answer provided by the Court carries substantial implications for commercial litigation throughout the UAE.
The Federal Supreme Court’s Position
The Federal Supreme Court reaffirmed a well-established principle of UAE law that has deep roots in both civil law and Islamic jurisprudence.
The Court held that a debtor’s delay in paying amounts that are due and payable without a legitimate excuse constitutes a wrongful act that causes damage to the creditor. Such conduct gives rise to a right to compensation because the creditor is deprived of the ability to utilize and benefit from funds that rightfully belong to it.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that the creditor’s right to compensation does not depend upon proof that the debtor personally benefited from the retained funds. The compensable harm lies in the deprivation suffered by the creditor itself, not in any enrichment enjoyed by the debtor.
This principle reflects a practical commercial reality. Money possesses economic utility. A business deprived of its funds loses opportunities to invest, finance operations, pay suppliers, meet payroll obligations, or pursue commercial growth. The law therefore recognizes that unjustified withholding of money inherently causes harm.
The Three Elements of Civil Liability
The Supreme Court reiterated that compensation for a wrongful act requires the existence of the three traditional elements of civil liability:
First: Fault
The Court found fault established where the principal contractor and project owner failed to release payments that were contractually due to the subcontractor.
The expert evidence and lower court findings confirmed that the subcontractor had completed the assigned works and that no legitimate contractual justification existed for withholding payment. The courts had already recognized the existence of the debt and ordered payment of AED 978,161.69.
Accordingly, the wrongful withholding of the subcontractor’s contractual entitlements constituted fault.
Second: Damage
The Supreme Court criticized the lower court’s reasoning that no damage had been proven.
The Court observed that once the defendants’ wrongful withholding of payment had been established, the resulting deprivation of the subcontractor’s ability to use and benefit from those funds constituted actual and direct damage.
The Court expressly recognized that the subcontractor suffered harm by being prevented from enjoying and utilizing money that should have been available to it under the contract.
Third: Causation
The Court further held that a direct causal relationship existed between the defendants’ conduct and the subcontractor’s loss.
The harm suffered was a direct consequence of the delayed payment. The deprivation of access to funds resulted directly from the defendants’ failure to discharge their payment obligations. Consequently, the causal link required to establish liability was fully satisfied.
A Significant Correction of Lower Court Reasoning
One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the Court’s criticism of the lower court’s approach to proving damages.
The Court clarified that once fault and deprivation of contractual funds are established, courts should not adopt an excessively restrictive approach requiring creditors to prove every conceivable financial consequence of delayed payment.
The very fact that a party has been deprived of the use of money to which it was legally entitled may itself constitute a compensable loss.
This clarification is particularly important for businesses that often face practical difficulties in documenting every indirect consequence arising from delayed payment.
Relevance to Construction and Subcontracting Disputes
The judgment is likely to have particular significance within the UAE construction industry.
Construction projects frequently involve complex payment chains between employers, main contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, and consultants. Delays occurring at one level often cascade through the contractual structure and create substantial financial pressures for downstream participants.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that parties cannot withhold certified and undisputed payments without consequence. Where payment is delayed without lawful justification, the responsible party may face liability not only for the principal amount but also for compensation arising from the delay itself.
This strengthens legal protection for subcontractors and suppliers whose cash flow frequently depends upon timely payment certification and release of funds.
Relationship with Islamic Jurisprudence
The judgment is also notable because it expressly confirms the compatibility of this principle with Islamic jurisprudence.
The Court observed that compensating a creditor for harm arising from a debtor’s unjustified delay in payment is consistent with both UAE law and Sharia principles. The Court recognized that the wrongful deprivation of another person’s financial rights creates a legally recognizable injury requiring redress.
This reflects the broader UAE legal philosophy of harmonizing modern commercial principles with the principles of justice embedded within Islamic law.
Procedural Impact of the Judgment
The Supreme Court ultimately concluded that the lower court had misapplied the law by refusing compensation despite finding that:
- Payment had been wrongfully withheld.
- The debt was due and payable.
- The subcontractor had fulfilled its contractual obligations.
- No defects or delays were attributable to the subcontractor.
- The defendants’ conduct deprived the subcontractor of access to its funds.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court overturned the judgment and remitted the matter for reconsideration.
The Court further held that because the legal positions of the parties in the related appeal were interconnected, the reversal of one appeal necessarily resulted in the reversal of the companion appeal.
Practical Lessons for Businesses
This judgment offers several important lessons for businesses operating in the UAE.
First, debtors should recognize that withholding contractual payments without legitimate justification may expose them to liability beyond the principal debt itself.
Second, creditors should understand that delayed payment may support a separate compensation claim where the delay causes deprivation of the use of funds.
Third, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers should maintain comprehensive records of payment applications, certifications, invoices, correspondence, and demands for payment, as these documents may become crucial in establishing fault and causation.
Fourth, parties should carefully review contractual payment mechanisms and dispute resolution provisions to ensure that payment obligations are clearly defined and enforceable.
Conclusion
The Federal Supreme Court’s judgment of 20 January 2026 represents a significant reaffirmation of creditor protection under UAE law. By recognizing that unjustified delay in payment constitutes a compensable wrong, the Court has strengthened the legal remedies available to businesses affected by non-payment and reinforced the principle that contractual obligations must be performed in good faith and within the agreed timeframe.
The decision confirms that money unlawfully withheld is not merely a debt; it is a financial resource whose deprivation may itself constitute legally recognized damage. For contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, lenders, and commercial entities throughout the UAE, the judgment serves as an important reminder that delayed payment can carry consequences extending beyond repayment of the outstanding amount.
As commercial transactions continue to grow in scale and complexity, this decision is likely to become an influential precedent in future disputes involving delayed payment, contractual performance, and claims for compensation arising from financial loss.
If you require further clarification or legal assistance concerning the matters discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact KH Legal Advocates & Legal Consultants LLC. Our lawyers would be happy to assist you
Authors:
