Employer Recourse for Gross Medical Negligence and Subordinate Personal Liability Judgment

United Arab Emirates - The Federal Supreme Court

Session on Wednesday, September 9, 2026

Presided over by Judge Dawood Ibrahim Abu Al-Shawarib, President of the Circuit,
and with the membership of Judges Al-Hasan bin Al-Arabi Faidi and Dr. Hasan Muhammad Hasan Hind.

Appeal No. 443 of 2026 Administrative

Judicial Headnotes

(1-4) Action: "Recourse Action: Cases where the Master has recourse against the Servant." Court: "Court of Merits: Its authority to deduce fault, damage, and causal link giving rise to medical liability." Medical Liability. "Liability of the Master for the Unlawful Acts of the Servant: Disciplinary Liability, Civil Liability." Civil Transactions: "Personal Obligations and Rights: Sources of Obligation: Harmful Act: Establishment of fault entailing physician's liability."

1. Determining an Employee's Civil Liability: The necessity of distinguishing between personal fault and service-related (administrative) fault. Standard: The intent underlying the employee's act while discharging their duties. Proof that the act involved malice, intention to cause harm to others, seeking personal benefit, or was tainted by gross negligence. Effect: It is deemed a personal fault for which the employee is answerable out of their private assets. Where the employee aims to serve the public interest or where the conduct aligns with the administrative objectives entrusted to them. Effect: The act merges into the duties of the public service, is deemed a service fault, and the administration alone is held liable. Exception: Gross negligence constitutes personal fault even if directed at the public interest. Its illustrative forms.

2. Master's Liability for the Unlawful Acts of the Servant: A vicarious liability prescribed by operation of law founded on legal guaranty. Rationale and effect: The master is treated as a statutory joint surety. Consequence: The master has the right of recourse against the servant who caused the harm for the compensation paid to the victim, as the master is liable for the servant, not jointly with them.

3. Disciplinary and Civil Liability of the Employee: The distinction between them rests on: disciplinary liability arises from any breach of professional duty or offense against the dignity of the office, whereas civil liability does not attach unless the fault bears a personal character. Effect: Personal fault alone is insufficient to establish civil liability unless it causes compensable damage.

4. Understanding the Case Facts: Weighing evidence, documents, and expert reports, and adopting an expert report based on its reasoning falls within the discretionary jurisdiction of the court of merits, provided its judgment is founded on sound reasons sufficient to support it. Effect: It is under no obligation to trace all the arguments of the litigants or answer them independently, provided it identifies the established truth and provides evidence therefor.

(5) Proof of gross fault on the part of the appellant pursuant to a final and decisive judgment supported by the report of the medical committee, which confirmed a 60% gross fault attributed to her for failing to decide on delivering the patient at the appropriate time and failing to recognize the critical condition of the fetus. Effect: The appellant’s civil liability is engaged from her personal assets. Result: The master (the respondent) is entitled to claim recourse against the appellant, as the tortfeasor who caused the damage, for the compensation paid to the victim. The challenged judgment, having adopted this reasoning and having ordered the appellant to pay the amount indemnified by the respondent to the victim, was rendered in full accordance with the correct application of the law. Challenging this constitutes a factual argument beyond the supervision of the Supreme Court. Effect: Inadmissibility of the appeal.

(Appeal No. 443 of 2026 Administrative, Session of 9/9/2026)

Legal Principles and Reasoning

1- It is established in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court that, within the scope of an employee’s civil liability, a distinction must be drawn between service-related (administrative) fault and fault attributable personally to the employee. A fault is deemed personal where the act is colored by an aspect revealing human frailty, caprice, or lack of prudence. Conversely, where the harmful act bears no personal imprint and reflects an employee prone to normal human error in good faith, the fault in such case is service-related.

The decisive criterion lies in the intention underlying the employee’s conduct while executing their job duties. Whenever the employee intends malice, seeks to harm others, aims for personal gain, or commits an act marked by gross fault, the fault is deemed personal and the employee is answerable for it out of their private assets. However, where the employee's act intends the fulfillment of a public interest or pursues one of the administrative goals assigned to the administration within its administrative purview, the fault merges into the functions of the office such that it cannot be detached therefrom, and is considered attributable to the public service, rendering the administration alone liable.

It is likewise established in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court that a fault is regarded as personal—even if directed at serving the public interest—where it reaches the threshold of gross fault. Such gross fault manifests in three main forms:

• A. The employee commits gross professional negligence, such as where a physician administers a diphtheria vaccine to children without taking necessary preventive measures, resulting in their poisoning.

• B. The employee commits a gross legal fault, such as an employee exceeding their authority flagrantly by ordering the demolition of a privately owned wall.

• C. The employee's act constitutes a criminal offense punishable under the Penal Code.

2- It is established in the rulings of the Federal Supreme Court that the master’s liability for the unlawful acts of their servant is a vicarious liability prescribed by operation of law in favor of the injured party. It is grounded on the principle of legal guaranty; hence, the master is considered in the position of a joint surety whose suretyship originates from the law and not from a contract. Consequently, the master is entitled of right to seek recourse against the servant who caused the damage to recover whatever compensation was paid to the injured party, precisely as a joint surety claims recourse against the principal debtor whom they guaranteed, because the master is responsible for the servant, not jointly with them.

3- It is established that while the legislature made any dereliction of occupational duty or violation of professional dignity a ground for disciplinary liability, it did not impose civil liability on the employee unless the fault committed was characterized as personal. A personal fault alone does not suffice to trigger an employee's liability unless it results in compensable harm.

4- It is established in the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court that the authority to comprehend and ascertain the facts of a case rests exclusively with the court of merits so long as its deductions are plausible. The court possesses absolute discretion to examine and weigh the evidence and documents submitted, to interpret instruments without departing from their clear import, and to assess expert findings as evidentiary components subject to its evaluation. The court may accept an expert's report in whole or in part, or discard it, as it adjudicates solely upon what satisfies its conviction. It also holds general authority to weigh judicial evidence and ascertain the true legal position, and is under no obligation to track the parties through every aspect of their defenses or refute each individual argument, provided it explains the truth it reached and provides its supporting grounds.

5- Given that the challenged judgment admitted the appeal as to form and, on the merits, vacated the judgment of the court of first instance, ruling anew by ordering the first appellee to pay the appellant the amount of AED 2,133,090, ordering the second appellee to pay the appellant the amount of AED 1,422,060, dismissing the claim for legal interest as inadmissible, and ordering both appellees to bear fees and expenses, on the basis that gross negligence was proven against the appellant under the final and conclusive judgment rendered in Appeal No. [...] of 2024 Administrative (upheld by the Supreme Court in Appeal No. [...] of 2025) and under the medical committee report showing a 60% gross fault attributable to the appellant consisting of failing to decide on delivering the patient at the proper time and failing to detect fetal distress, where the appellant bears 60% of the fault; and since the records establish that the respondent settled the awarded compensation to the injured party arising from the gross fault caused by the appellant in the amount of AED 2,231,090, the challenged judgment’s conclusion ordering the appellant to pay the aforesaid sum was issued in accordance with sound law. The challenge constitutes nothing more than a factual disagreement with the trial court's authority, which is beyond the review of this Court, thereby warranting a declaration of inadmissibility.

The Court's Deliberation and Grounds

Whereas it is firmly established in the jurisprudence of this Court that, in the realm of an employee’s civil liability, a clear distinction must be made between service-related (administrative) fault and the fault attributed to the employee personally. A fault is deemed personal if the act is characterized by human weakness, impulses, and lack of prudence. Conversely, where the harmful act bears no personal imprint and reflects an employee prone to ordinary error, the fault is considered service-related.

The standard depends on the intent underlying the employee's act while discharging their official duties. Whenever the employee acts with malice, an intent to injure others, seeks personal interest, or where their fault is gross, the fault is deemed personal and the employee is held answerable out of their private assets. However, if the employee aims through the act to fulfill a public interest or achieve one of the administrative purposes entrusted to the administration within its operational function, the fault merges into the functions of the office such that it cannot be separated therefrom, and is considered attributable to the public service, rendering the administration alone liable for the fault without the employee.

It is further established in this Court's jurisprudence that a fault is regarded as personal—even where pursuing the public interest—if it constitutes a gross fault. The gravity of such fault is manifested in three forms:

1. The employee commits a gross error, such as a doctor administering diphtheria vaccination to a group of children without taking necessary precautions, leading to their poisoning.

2. The employee commits a gross legal error, as where an official exceeds their authority egregiously, for example by ordering the demolition of a wall owned by an individual.

3. The act committed by the employee constitutes a criminal offense under the Penal Code.

It is also established in this Court's jurisprudence that the master's liability for the unlawful acts of their servant is a vicarious liability prescribed by operation of law for the benefit of the injured party, founded on legal guaranty. The master is considered a statutory joint surety whose suretyship originates from the law and not from a contract. Consequently, the master has the right of recourse against the servant who caused the harm to recover the compensation paid to the injured party, just as a joint surety has recourse against the guaranteed principal debtor, since the master is liable for the servant, not jointly with them. The legislature subjected any breach of official duty or occupational dignity to the employee's disciplinary liability, whereas civil liability is not engaged unless the fault is personal in nature. Personal fault alone does not suffice to hold the employee liable unless compensable damage results therefrom.

It is likewise established, in accordance with the steady jurisprudence of this Court, that the authority to grasp and infer the facts of the case is the independent province of the court of merits so long as its reasoning is sound. It possesses plenary authority to examine and evaluate the evidence and documents submitted, to balance between them, to interpret instruments without distorting their meaning, and to evaluate expert reports as an element of evidence subject to its total discretion. The court may accept the expert report in whole or in part, or set it aside, as it rules solely on what commands its confidence. It also holds general authority to weigh judicial evidence and ascertain the factual truth and the correct legal position, and is not required to follow the litigants into all facets of their defenses or rebut each detail of their arguments, provided it indicates the truth it found convincing and adduces proof therefor.

Whereas the challenged judgment declared the appeal admissible as to form, and on the merits vacated the judgment of the court of first instance, ruling anew by ordering the first appellee to pay the appellant the amount of AED 2,133,090, ordering the second appellee to pay the appellant the amount of AED 1,422,060, dismissing the claim for legal interest, and ordering both appellees to pay fees and expenses, based on established gross fault committed by the appellant pursuant to the final, conclusive judgment rendered in Appeal No. 000 of 2024 Administrative, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Appeal No. 000 of 2025, and pursuant to the medical committee report confirming a 60% gross fault attributed to the appellant for not taking the decision to deliver

the patient at the proper time and failing to detect the critical condition of the fetus, where she bears 60% of the fault; and whereas the record establishes that the respondent paid the compensation awarded to the injured party arising from the gross fault caused by the appellant in the sum of AED 2,231,090, the challenged judgment’s order compelling the appellant to pay the aforementioned sum was in conformity with the sound application of the law.

Furthermore, the appellant's argument amounts to an impermissible factual dispute regarding the trial court's authority to evaluate the facts and assess the evidence, which is outside the scrutiny of this Court.

Final Judgment

The Court orders that the appeal be declared inadmissible.