The Role of Procedure in Aviation Claims: Recent Dubai Court Successes
Transport & Insurance Focus
Procedural strategy is often a determining factor in the outcome of aviation disputes in the United Arab Emirates, due to its unique laws that govern filing of claims against its domestic airlines.
Law Update: Issue 376 – Transport & Insurance
Wael Elgouhari Senior Associate,Transport & Insurance
Sandrine Haber Associate,Transport & Insurance
Ameen KimAssociate,Transport & Insurance
Procedural strategy is often a determining factor in the outcome of aviation disputes in the United Arab Emirates, due to its unique laws that govern filing of claims against its domestic airlines. Our aviation litigation team at Al Tamimi & Company law firm recently successfully secured favourable rulings before the Dubai courts in both cargo and passenger claims, with procedural arguments proving to be the decisive factor in each case. This article examines these rulings and discusses the Dubai court’s interpretation of the pertinent local procedural laws.
In late 2021, a passenger on a flight from Moscow to Dubai alleged that he sustained bodily injury on the flight caused by his in-flight meal. 3 years later, the Claimant lodged a claim against the air carrier, our client.
While the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention 1999 (“MC99”)) provides a time bar of 2 years to bring aviation liability claims, starting from the date the aircraft reaches its destination, the date it should have arrived, or the date the carriage was interrupted, the Claimant relied on the provisions of the UAE Federal Law No. (5) of 1985 Concerning Civil Transactions Law (as amended) (“UAE Civil Code”), which provides a 3 year time bar for general tort claims.
By upholding the Montreal Convention’s two-year time bar over local laws and enforcing strict filing requirements for claims against governmental entities, the courts have reinforced this legal certainty and is encouraging such uniformity for all member states.
We presented our defence before the Dubai Court of First Instance (CFI) stating that, as both the UAE and Russia have ratified the MC99, the provisions of the MC99 take precedence for all aviation liability claims in the UAE. We cited a Dubai Court of Cassation (COC) ruling on a similar passenger claim, where the Dubai COC held in our favour ruling that:
“Any claim for damages against an air carrier, must be filed with the competent court within the 2 year period stipulated by the international aviation law treaty regime and the 2 year limit shall not be subject to the interruption and/or suspension provisions recognised by the UAE local law.”
The Dubai CFI affirmed the precedent set by the Dubai COC cted case, upholding the primacy of the 2-year time bar under the MC99 for aviation liability claims:
“The Dubai CFI interestingly stated that “The two-year period is a forfeiture period that is not subject to suspension or interruption. Notably, the convention uses the term "decheance" which means the loss of the right to file a lawsuit, rather than "prescription," which refers to the time bar. This forfeiture applies to all claims arising from air transport subject to this convention, regardless of their nature, basis, the claimant, or their legal successors. Furthermore, this provision applies not only to liability claims in the narrow sense (i.e., claims filed according to civil procedural laws) but also to all proceedings against the air carrier due to his liability even if it is just the enforcement of judgments issued against him, as long as the prescribed period has elapsed.”
It is worth highlighting that the CFI noted that, not only the 3-years tort liability under the UAE Civil Transactions Law does not apply, but also the 2-year time bar under the Article 370 of the UAE Commercial Transactions Law does not apply either. This means that, regardless of the number of years, the MC99 takes precedence over any general laws (i.e. the UAE Civil Transactions Law and the UAE Commercial Transactions Law) which shall only govern matters that are either unregulated by the treaty or fall outside its scope.
The Dubai courts have now been consistently recognizing that, as the UAE is a signatory to the MC99, its provisions take precedence over conflicting local law time bars. This decision reinforces the established legal framework for aviation liability claims in the UAE, ensuring consistency and clarity in the application of international conventions in local courts.
A UAE l air carrier, our client, was the air cargo carrier for a consignment containing electronic hardware shipped from Shanghai to Dubai in late 2021. When the consignment arrived at Dubai International Airport, the consignment reportedly found to have suffered near-total water damage, resulting in complete loss of value. In 2023, only months before the MC99 2-year time bar expired, the purchaser’s insurers (“Claimant”) filed a claim against our client before the Dubai CFI for the damages sustained.
Our primary defense was that the Claimant did not adhere to the procedural requirements of the Dubai Law No. (3) of 1996 Concerning Government Claims (as amended) (“Government Claims Law”). Under the Government Claims Law, lawsuits against the governmental entities must be filed with the Government of Dubai Legal Affairs Department (“GLAD”). The GLAD subsequently has 60 days to respond and attempt an amicable settlement, after which a claimant may proceed to file the claim with the courts if no resolution is reached. The claimant may also file the lawsuit before the courts prior to the 60 days, if his claim before the GLAD was expressly rejected.
In the case subject of this article, the Claimant had filed the claim before the GLAD and promptly initiated court proceedings without waiting for the mandatory 60-day period to elapse or receiving an explicit rejection of their claim, which contravened the requirements of the Government Claims Law. As the Claimant noted that the 60-day period transpired during the court proceedings, we further relied on established principles from the Dubai Court of Cassation, emphasizing that procedural deficiencies cannot be rectified retrospectively to revive a claim. The Dubai CFI accepted our arguments, dismissing the claim.
On appeal, the Claimant argued that filing the complaint with the GLAD suspended the 2 year time bar, making their claim timely. However, the Dubai Court of Appeal (CoA) upheld the CFI’s decision, affirming that the lower court’s reasoning was correct and aligned with the applicable legal framework, where the CFI stated that:
“Although the right to litigation is a general right available to all without discrimination, when the legislator intervenes to regulate the exercise of this right by establishing rules and procedures to ensure and protect it from deviation, the right holder must adhere to these rules and procedures when asserting this right.”
It continues:
“A lawsuit will not be accepted or heard until it is verified that these rules and procedures have been followed, as they pertain to litigation processes, which are inherently part of public order.”
We are of the view that the affirmed judgment underscores the judiciary’s strict approach to procedural compliance, being associated with Public Order.
To conclude, recent Dubai court rulings reaffirm the critical role of procedural strategy in aviation disputes. By upholding the Montreal Convention’s two-year time bar over local laws and enforcing strict filing requirements for claims against governmental entities, the courts have reinforced this legal certainty and is encouraging such uniformity for all member states. Additionally, these court decisions make it clear that procedural missteps cannot be corrected retrospectively, highlighting the need for meticulous compliance with local law provisions as well. As aviation litigation in the UAE evolves, a strategic and precise approach remains key to having your claim heard.
Al Tamimi & Co.’s Aviation team has extensive experience in advising airline and aviation companies in matters of UAE law in relation to contentious aviation matters, including passenger and cargo liability claims. In addition, we have rights of audience before the courts across in Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE, as well as local insights have enabled us to represent clients in complex local and multi-jurisdictional claims, defences, and commercial transactions. For further information on this sector or for any inquiries for assistance, please contact our team (https://www.tamimi.com/client-services/sectors/transport-logistics/ ).
For further information,please contact Wael Elgouhari, Sandrine Haber and Ameen Kim.
Published in April 2025
