News

Introduction

In January 2026, the UAE legislator brought into force a series of amendments to the Federal Civil Procedures Law (Federal Decree‑Law No. 42 of 2022) through Federal Decree‑Law No. 22 of 2025. These amendments reflect a clear legislative direction toward procedural discipline, judicial specialization, and enhanced fairness across civil and commercial disputes.

The reforms manifest in several key areas, most notably the establishment of specialized judicial chambers for technically complex disputes such as inheritance and certain civil or commercial matters, the introduction of heightened procedural thresholds at the appellate stage to limit unmeritorious challenges and reduce court congestion, and the expansion of the Attorney General’s powers as a safeguard for systemic judicial oversight. Collectively, these changes recalibrate how disputes are initiated, managed, and reviewed before the UAE courts.

In this briefing, we outline the principal amendments introduced by the new law, ,and highlight key considerations and proactive steps that businesses and litigants should adopt to align their dispute strategies with the UAE’s evolving procedural framework.

Article 32

Under the amended framework, the President of the Federal Judicial Council or the head of a local judicial authority may, by decision, constitute specialized chambers for estate and inheritance disputes without requiring the consent of the parties. In addition, specialized chambers for civil or commercial disputes may be constituted upon the request or agreement of the litigants. These chambers are expressly empowered to appoint local and/or international experts, engage more rigorously with expert evidence, and direct the completion or rectification of expert reports. Save for applications for reconsideration, judgments issued by such chambers are not subject to ordinary avenues of appeal, marking a deliberate departure from the traditional multi‑tiered appellate model.

From a policy perspective, these reforms signal a legislative preference for early decisiveness anchored in specialization and technical accuracy. By centralizing complex disputes before dedicated benches and reinforcing expert‑driven fact‑finding, the framework intentionally narrows appellate latitude in exchange for higher first‑instance decisional quality. The anticipated effect is a reduction in serial appeals and procedural attrition, with disputes determined on a more complete and reliable evidentiary record at the earliest judicial stage. This is a recalibration rather than a curtailment of justice: review is constrained precisely because the decision‑making process is strengthened at source.

Practically, the reform introduces forum strategy as a material component of litigation planning. In civil and commercial matters where parties may elect referral to a specialized chamber, the choice between a specialized chamber and the ordinary court track becomes a commercial and risk‑management decision, balancing speed and technical rigor against the availability of broader appellate review. For estate related disputes, whether between heirs, involving third parties, or affecting corporate interests, success will depend on early asset mapping, comprehensive documentation, and expert preparedness.

Parties should develop robust document trails capable of withstanding expert scrutiny, consider alternative dispute resolution in parallel to manage disclosure and timing, and, where estates involve cross‑border or complex holdings, engage forensic accountants and valuation experts at an early stage. Under this regime, evidentiary readiness and expert strategy are no longer tactical considerations, they are determinative.

Article 164

Article 164 reforms the appellate filing process in the UAE by requiring that every appeal, upon submission, includes a clear statement identifying the appealed judgment, its date, the grounds of appeal, and the relief sought. This amendment expressly displaces the former practice whereby appellants were permitted to supplement or articulate appeal grounds at the first hearing.

The revised provision operates as an admissibility threshold, such that appeals lacking clearly defined and substantive grounds at the time of filing are liable to be dismissed at the outset. While this will streamline appellate dockets and curtail placeholder appeals, it simultaneously increases the risk of strike‑out for non‑compliance with formal requirements.

Accordingly, litigators must adopt an appeal‑ready approach from the first‑instance stage, ensuring early issue crystallization, preservation of objections, and structured evidentiary records, as procedural precision has become determinative of appellate access under the amended framework.

Article 175

Under this Article, cassation review is no longer confined to final judgments of the Courts of Appeal, but now extends to interlocutory and partial appellate decisions where such decisions have a direct and substantive impact on the rights of the parties. This represents a material departure from the prior regime, under which only final dispositive judgments were susceptible to cassation, and positions the Court of Cassation as a more active supervisory authority over rights‑affecting appellate rulings throughout the life of a dispute.

From a systemic perspective, the reform has the potential to correct prejudicial procedural or legal errors at an earlier stage, thereby reducing the cumulative harm that may otherwise crystallize by the time a dispute reaches final judgment. It also incentivizes more disciplined and reasoned adjudication at the appellate level, knowing that even interim determinations may attract cassation scrutiny. However, the breadth of the provision introduces a measure of doctrinal uncertainty, as the law does not define which interlocutory or partial decisions will be deemed to “affect the merits” or substantive rights. This ambiguity raises a realistic risk of increased cassation filings and attendant judicial congestion until the courts articulate a clear factual and legal threshold delineating reviewable interlocutory decisions, an area that will merit close observation in the initial jurisprudence applying the amendment.

Article 176

Pursuant to this Article, the Attorney General is empowered on a discretionary basis, to bring cassation challenges against non‑appealable decisions of the Courts of Appeal, including decisions issued in chamber deliberations, and in circumstances where parties have forfeited or missed ordinary appeal deadlines. Functionally, this operates as a public‑interest safeguard, ensuring that decisions affected by material legal error, jurisdictional excess, or serious procedural irregularity do not evade judicial scrutiny merely because ordinary routes are unavailable or lapsed.

In practice, the power is expected to be sparingly exercised and reserved for cases where administrative rigidity or procedural missteps risk undermining access to justice, due process, or systemic coherence. Applicants should anticipate a high threshold: the inquiry will be fact sensitive and law focused. Strategically, counsel should document procedural prejudice contemporaneously, maintain an issue log identifying potential cassation points, and consider early engagement where a public‑interest petition may be warranted.

Conclusion

The 2026 amendments to the UAE Civil Procedures Code represent a deliberate recalibration of civil justice, shifting the system toward front‑loaded litigation, enhanced judicial specialization, and earlier decision finality, while maintaining robust mechanisms for legal oversight. By reinforcing expert‑driven fact‑finding, tightening appellate admissibility, and expanding selective cassation review, the reforms favor precision at the outset of proceedings over prolonged cycles of appeal, thereby promoting both efficiency and institutional confidence in judicial outcomes.

In practical terms, these changes elevate the strategic importance of early case design, including forum selection, evidentiary preparation, and expert engagement. Litigants who adapt by presenting focused pleadings and carefully structure an appeal‑ready records will be best positioned to benefit from faster timelines and more stable judgments, while those relying on procedural latitude at later stages may face increased risk.

BSA LAW’s litigation teams in Abu Dhabi and Dubai are already navigating these reforms in active proceedings, translating procedural change into tactical advantage for our clients. We remain committed to guiding clients through this evolving landscape, whether the objective is swift resolution, principled appellate review, or long-term dispute risk management during this transformative phase of UAE civil litigation.