Civil Law And UAE Epistemic Uncertainty In Civil Adjudication Systems

1. Introduction

Epistemic uncertainty in civil adjudication refers to uncertainty about what can reliably be known or established in a civil dispute.

A civil court normally has to determine:

what happened;

who performed or failed to perform an obligation;

whether a document is authentic;

whether damage occurred;

what caused the damage;

whether a contractual obligation existed;

whether a party acted in good faith; and

what remedy should follow.

However, the court rarely has direct access to the historical event itself. It reconstructs the event from evidence.

Therefore, civil adjudication involves a fundamental process:

Historical event → Evidence → Judicial assessment → Established fact → Legal rule → Judgment

At every stage uncertainty may arise.

In the UAE, this issue has become increasingly important because civil disputes now involve:

electronic contracts;

WhatsApp and email communications;

digital signatures;

artificial intelligence;

cybersecurity incidents;

complex construction projects;

multinational corporations;

financial transactions;

expert evidence;

cross-border documents; and

large volumes of electronically stored information.

The central problem is therefore not simply whether a legal rule exists, but whether the court possesses sufficiently reliable information to apply that rule to the dispute.

2. Meaning of Epistemic Uncertainty

The term epistemic concerns knowledge.

Epistemic uncertainty therefore means uncertainty concerning the reliability, completeness, interpretation, or availability of knowledge.

For example:

A claimant produces a WhatsApp message allegedly sent by the defendant.

The court may need to ask:

Is the account actually controlled by the defendant?

Was the message genuinely sent?

Has the message been altered?

Is the screenshot complete?

Is the date accurate?

Was the message intended as a contractual acceptance?

Was the person authorised to bind the company?

Thus, one piece of evidence can generate several layers of uncertainty.

3. Epistemic Uncertainty Is Not the Same as Legal Uncertainty

These concepts should be distinguished.

A single dispute may contain all five.

4. UAE Legal Framework

A. Civil Transactions Law

The current UAE framework is the Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 Promulgating the Civil Transactions Law, which entered into force on 1 June 2026.

It provides the general framework for:

obligations;

contracts;

good faith;

interpretation;

liability;

causation;

compensation;

unjust enrichment;

property;

guarantees; and

other civil relationships.

The Code therefore supplies the substantive rules that the court applies after determining the relevant facts.

B. Evidence Law

Federal Decree-Law No. 35 of 2022 concerning Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions is particularly important.

It regulates the use and assessment of different forms of evidence, including:

written evidence;

electronic evidence;

testimony;

admissions;

presumptions;

expert evidence; and

other legally recognised forms of proof.

The Evidence Law provides the bridge between uncertain information and judicially usable evidence.

C. Electronic Transactions and Trust Services

Federal Decree-Law No. 46 of 2021 concerning Electronic Transactions and Trust Services is relevant where uncertainty concerns:

electronic documents;

electronic signatures;

electronic records;

digital authentication;

electronic communications; and

electronic transactions.

5. Sources of Epistemic Uncertainty

5.1 Incomplete Evidence

A court may not possess every document relating to a transaction.

For example:

emails may have been deleted;

contracts may have several versions;

accounting records may be incomplete;

electronic logs may have expired;

cloud information may be unavailable.

The absence of information creates uncertainty concerning the historical facts.

6. Authenticity Uncertainty

A document may exist without its authenticity being established.

The court may have to determine:

Who actually created this document?

This issue is particularly important with:

screenshots;

emails;

scanned documents;

digital signatures;

social-media messages;

WhatsApp communications;

AI-generated documents.

Authenticity therefore precedes substantive evaluation.

7. Attribution Uncertainty

Even if an electronic record is genuine, another question remains:

Can the record legally be attributed to the person or entity against whom it is being used?

For example, an employee may send a message from a company account.

The court may have to determine:

whether the employee was authorised;

whether the account was controlled by the employee;

whether the employee had authority to contract;

whether the company subsequently ratified the conduct.

Thus:

Authenticity ≠ Attribution.

8. Interpretation Uncertainty

Even when evidence is authentic, its meaning may remain uncertain.

For example:

“We agree to proceed.”

This statement could mean:

acceptance of a final contract;

preliminary approval;

commercial intention;

agreement subject to further documentation.

The court must therefore determine the legal meaning of the communication by considering the contract, surrounding circumstances and parties' intention.

9. Expert Evidence Uncertainty

Many modern civil disputes depend heavily upon experts.

Examples include:

construction;

engineering;

accounting;

valuation;

cybersecurity;

environmental damage;

medical causation;

financial loss.

Experts may disagree.

One engineer may conclude:

Defect caused by poor design.

Another may conclude:

Defect caused by poor maintenance.

The court must decide how the competing opinions should be evaluated.

The expert does not make the legal decision.

10. Causal Uncertainty

Causation can be especially difficult.

Suppose a company suffers a major financial loss after a cybersecurity incident.

Potential causes include:

employee negligence;

external hacking;

software vulnerability;

inadequate security controls;

third-party service provider failure.

The court must determine which causal connection is legally established.

This can be represented as:

Conduct → Event → Causal Link → Damage

Uncertainty at any stage can affect liability.

11. Quantification Uncertainty

Even when liability is established, the amount of damage may remain uncertain.

For example:

A claimant proves breach of contract but claims AED 10 million in lost future profits.

The court may have to determine:

whether the profits were reasonably expected;

whether the calculation is speculative;

whether alternative causes contributed to the loss;

whether mitigation occurred;

whether the claimed amount is supported by financial evidence.

Thus:

Liability certainty does not necessarily produce damages certainty.

12. Digital Evidence and Epistemic Uncertainty

Digital evidence creates both opportunities and problems.

Digital records can provide:

timestamps;

transaction histories;

metadata;

audit trails;

communication records;

access logs.

But they may also create uncertainty through:

account compromise;

manipulation;

incomplete metadata;

system errors;

synchronisation problems;

deleted records;

deepfakes;

AI-generated content.

The court therefore has to evaluate both the existence and reliability of digital information.

13. AI and Epistemic Uncertainty

AI can increase the volume of information available to courts while simultaneously creating new uncertainty.

For example, an AI system might classify thousands of documents as:

relevant;

irrelevant;

suspicious;

confidential;

responsive.

But questions may remain concerning:

training data;

algorithmic methodology;

false positives;

false negatives;

system reliability;

explainability.

Consequently:

Algorithmic output is information, not automatically a judicially established fact.

Human judicial evaluation remains important.

14. Uncertainty in Contract Formation

Digital commerce can create uncertainty concerning whether a contract has actually been concluded.

Potential evidence may include:

website terms;

click acceptance;

email;

WhatsApp;

electronic signature;

automated system logs;

purchase orders;

invoices;

subsequent performance.

The court may have to reconstruct the chain:

Offer → Acceptance → Intention → Attribution → Contract

The absence of a traditional paper signature does not necessarily resolve the question.

15. Good Faith as a Response to Uncertainty

Good faith is an important organising principle in UAE civil law.

Parties should not deliberately exploit uncertainty through:

concealment;

manipulation of evidence;

selective disclosure;

misleading communications;

artificial contractual records;

destruction of relevant information.

Good faith therefore has both a substantive and an epistemic dimension.

It helps protect the integrity of the information on which contractual adjudication depends.

16. Judicial Interpretation as Uncertainty Reduction

A central function of civil adjudication is to reduce uncertainty.

The court transforms:

Conflicting Evidence

↓

Judicial Assessment

↓

Established Facts

↓

Applicable Legal Rule

↓

Judgment

↓

Final Legal Consequence

The judgment does not necessarily establish philosophical certainty about what actually happened.

Instead, it creates an authoritative legal determination based on the evidence and applicable legal standards.

17. Case Law

Case 1 — UAE Federal Supreme Court Appeal No. 322/1999

Principle

The merits court has authority to interpret contractual provisions and determine the parties' contractual intention.

Relevance to epistemic uncertainty

Contract disputes frequently involve competing interpretations of the same words.

The court must reconstruct the parties' intention from the contractual material and surrounding circumstances.

The case therefore demonstrates that uncertainty about contractual meaning is ultimately resolved through judicial interpretation.

Key principle

Contractual information → Judicial interpretation → Legal meaning.

18. Case 2 — Dubai Court of Cassation No. 18/2000

Principle

Clear contractual language should generally be respected.

Relevance

A large volume of contextual evidence can create uncertainty.

However, where the contractual wording is sufficiently clear, courts do not ordinarily need to reconstruct an entirely different bargain from surrounding material.

This acts as an epistemic filtering mechanism.

Key principle

Clear text can reduce interpretive uncertainty.

19. Case 3 — Dubai Court of Cassation No. 137/2004

Principle

Contract interpretation must remain grounded in the contractual text and cannot become judicial rewriting.

Relevance

This protects the boundary between:

determining meaning; and

creating a new agreement.

In epistemic terms, the court cannot resolve uncertainty by inventing facts or contractual intentions unsupported by the legal record.

Key principle

Interpretation reduces uncertainty without manufacturing certainty.

20. Case 4 — Dubai Court of Cassation No. 56/2004

Principle

Correct legal characterisation is important in determining which legal rules apply.

Relevance

Sometimes uncertainty is not about what happened but about what legally happened.

For example, the same factual relationship might be characterised as:

agency;

distribution;

sale;

service;

construction;

financing.

The court must classify the relationship before applying the appropriate legal rules.

Key principle

Facts → Legal classification → Applicable law.

21. Case 5 — UAE Federal Supreme Court Civil Cassation No. 79/2020

Principle

Material statements and defences should be considered in their proper context and significant matters should not be evaluated in an artificially isolated manner.

Relevance

This is particularly important when evidence is fragmented.

A party may rely on one sentence from:

an email;

a contract;

an expert report;

an admission.

The court should consider the relevant evidentiary context.

Key principle

Context reduces epistemic distortion.

22. Case 6 — UAE Federal Supreme Court Civil Cassation No. 647/2021

Principle

Material evidence and substantial defences require adequate judicial consideration.

Relevance

Epistemic uncertainty cannot be resolved simply by ignoring information that may materially affect the dispute.

The decision illustrates the importance of engaging with evidence capable of changing the legal analysis.

Key principle

Material evidence must be meaningfully evaluated.

23. Case 7 — UAE Federal Supreme Court Cassations Nos. 683 and 769/2021

Principle

Contract interpretation is a judicial/legal function. Experts cannot substitute themselves for the court in deciding legal interpretation, and material objections concerning expert reports require appropriate judicial consideration.

Relevance

This establishes an institutional boundary between technical knowledge and legal judgment.

An engineer can explain:

“The building defect resulted from inadequate structural design.”

But the court determines the legal consequences of that finding.

Key principle

Expert knowledge assists judicial reasoning; it does not replace judicial reasoning.

24. Case 8 — Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Cassation No. 468/2024

Principle

Electronic communications, including WhatsApp communications, may have evidentiary significance in establishing offer and acceptance when authenticity and attribution are established.

Relevance

The case demonstrates the changing epistemic environment of civil adjudication.

Traditional paper documents are no longer the exclusive source of contractual evidence.

The court may have to assess:

electronic communications;

authenticity;

attribution;

intention;

contractual context.

Key principle

Digital evidence can reduce uncertainty when authenticity and attribution are established.

25. Consolidated Case-Law Table

Important: These cases are principally UAE authorities on contractual interpretation, evidence, expert functions, judicial reasoning, and electronic communications. They are being used to illustrate the legal mechanisms through which epistemic uncertainty is managed, rather than presented as cases expressly using the academic term “epistemic uncertainty.”

26. The Judicial Standard: Certainty Is Not Absolute Certainty

Civil adjudication does not normally require philosophical certainty.

The court instead operates according to legally recognised standards of proof and evidentiary assessment.

Therefore:

Judicial certainty is institutional and legal, not necessarily absolute factual certainty.

A court may determine that a fact is sufficiently established for legal purposes even though alternative explanations remain theoretically possible.

This is an important distinction in complex civil disputes.

27. Epistemic Uncertainty and the Burden of Proof

The burden of proof becomes crucial where evidence is incomplete.

A party asserting:

breach;

damage;

causation;

payment;

ownership;

contractual formation;

must establish the relevant proposition according to the applicable legal and evidentiary framework.

If evidence remains genuinely insufficient, the court cannot simply replace the missing evidence with speculation.

Thus:

Uncertainty ≠ permission to speculate.

28. Judicial Discretion and Uncertainty

Civil law necessarily gives courts areas of evaluative judgment.

Examples include:

interpretation;

assessment of damages;

evaluation of expert evidence;

determination of causation;

assessment of good faith;

evaluation of surrounding circumstances.

But judicial discretion must remain connected to:

evidence;

legal principles;

reasoning;

applicable legislation;

procedural fairness.

The existence of uncertainty therefore does not eliminate legal constraints.

29. Epistemic Uncertainty in Multi-Expert Litigation

Suppose three experts provide three opinions:

The court should not simply select the opinion that appears most persuasive in isolation.

It may examine:

methodology;

underlying documents;

assumptions;

technical reasoning;

consistency with physical evidence;

objections raised by the parties;

qualifications;

internal contradictions.

The final determination belongs to the court.

30. Epistemic Uncertainty in Environmental Claims

Environmental disputes may involve:

multiple pollution sources;

historical contamination;

scientific uncertainty;

complex causal chains;

changing environmental conditions.

The court may therefore have to distinguish:

Scientific possibility

from

scientific probability

and then from:

legally established causation.

This is a major example of the difference between scientific knowledge and judicial knowledge.

31. Epistemic Uncertainty in Cybersecurity Disputes

Cyber disputes create particularly difficult questions.

For example:

A company's database was compromised, and customer information was stolen.

Possible explanations may include:

employee negligence;

external hacker;

vendor vulnerability;

inadequate authentication;

malware;

insider action.

Digital forensic evidence may establish some elements while leaving others uncertain.

The court must determine whether the evidence establishes the legally relevant causal chain.

32. Epistemic Uncertainty and Corporate Liability

Corporate disputes may involve information distributed across:

parent companies;

subsidiaries;

directors;

employees;

agents;

consultants;

contractors.

The court must distinguish:

knowledge possessed by an individual

from

knowledge legally attributable to the company.

Similarly:

conduct of an employee

does not automatically answer:

whether the company is legally liable.

Agency, authority, corporate structure and applicable liability rules remain relevant.

33. Cross-Border Epistemic Uncertainty

International disputes can create uncertainty because evidence may originate in different jurisdictions.

For example:

UAE company

→ contract in Dubai

→ payment through foreign bank

→ software supplied from Europe

→ data stored in Asia

→ expert located in another country.

The court may receive evidence generated under different technological and legal environments.

This creates the need for careful authentication, translation, contextualisation and legal classification.

34. Epistemic Uncertainty and Procedural Fairness

A party should have a meaningful opportunity to challenge important evidence.

This is particularly important where evidence comes from:

confidential databases;

AI systems;

foreign experts;

proprietary software;

inaccessible servers.

If one party relies upon an allegedly decisive technical conclusion, the opposing party should, subject to applicable procedural limits, have an opportunity to challenge its basis.

This helps maintain equality within civil adjudication.

35. Epistemic Uncertainty and Judicial Reasoning

A well-reasoned judgment should ideally distinguish:

Established fact

What the court considers proved.

Inference

What the court reasonably concludes from established facts.

Expert opinion

What a specialist concludes within their field.

Legal conclusion

What the law requires based on the established facts.

Remaining uncertainty

What has not been sufficiently established.

This distinction is essential to transparent adjudication.

36. Technology as Both Solution and Source of Uncertainty

Technology has a dual role.

Technology can reduce uncertainty through:

timestamps;

audit trails;

electronic signatures;

immutable records;

digital authentication;

forensic analysis.

Technology can also increase uncertainty through:

deepfakes;

cyberattacks;

algorithmic opacity;

data corruption;

account takeover;

synthetic documents;

automated errors.

Therefore:

Digitisation does not eliminate epistemic uncertainty; it changes its form.

37. UAE Civil Justice as an Uncertainty-Management System

The civil adjudication process can be represented as:

1. Claim

↓

2. Relevant Facts

↓

3. Evidence

↓

4. Authentication

↓

5. Expert/Technical Analysis

↓

6. Judicial Evaluation

↓

7. Legal Classification

↓

8. Application of Civil Law

↓

9. Judgment

↓

10. Remedy

Each stage attempts to reduce uncertainty while recognising that complete factual knowledge may be impossible.

38. Key Principles for Managing Epistemic Uncertainty

Principle 1 — Evidence before conclusion

The court should establish the evidentiary basis before reaching a legal conclusion.

Principle 2 — Authenticity before weight

A record must first be reliably connected to its claimed source.

Principle 3 — Attribution before liability

Evidence concerning conduct must be legally attributable to the relevant party.

Principle 4 — Experts assist courts

Technical experts do not determine legal questions.

Principle 5 — Context matters

Evidence should not be artificially separated from relevant surrounding circumstances.

Principle 6 — Material evidence requires consideration

Evidence capable of affecting the result should not simply be ignored.

Principle 7 — No speculative certainty

Uncertainty cannot legitimately be transformed into certainty through unsupported assumptions.

Principle 8 — Judicial reasoning remains central

The court ultimately determines the legal consequences.

39. Practical Example

Assume that a UAE company claims AED 5 million from a contractor for defective construction.

The contractor argues that:

the design was defective;

the employer changed specifications;

maintenance was inadequate.

Three engineering reports provide different conclusions.

The court may proceed through:

Contract

→ What were the obligations?

Evidence

→ What documents establish the specifications?

Expert evidence

→ What caused the defect?

Causation

→ Is the contractor's conduct legally connected to the damage?

Damage

→ What loss is actually established?

Legal classification

→ Breach, negligence, contractual liability or another basis?

Remedy

→ What compensation or other relief is legally justified?

This is epistemic uncertainty management in practical form.

40. Relationship Between Epistemic Uncertainty and Justice

Epistemic uncertainty creates a fundamental tension.

If courts demand too much certainty:

Legitimate claims may become impossible to prove.

If courts demand too little:

Liability may be imposed on insufficient evidence.

The civil justice system therefore requires a balance between:

Accuracy + Procedural fairness + Efficiency + Legal certainty.

The purpose is not to eliminate every uncertainty but to establish a legally defensible decision-making process.

41. Future Development in UAE Civil Adjudication

The issue will become increasingly important with:

AI-assisted litigation;

automated document review;

blockchain evidence;

digital identity;

smart contracts;

autonomous systems;

digital twins;

predictive analytics;

cross-border cloud evidence;

algorithmic decision-making.

Future civil adjudication may therefore involve a new question:

Who or what produced the information upon which the court is being asked to rely, and how can its reliability be established?

This is an epistemic question before it becomes a legal question.

42. Exam-Oriented Summary

Epistemic uncertainty in UAE civil adjudication means uncertainty concerning the reliability, completeness, interpretation, attribution or availability of information used to decide civil disputes.

It arises from:

incomplete evidence;

conflicting documents;

electronic records;

competing expert opinions;

uncertain causation;

cross-border evidence;

AI-generated information;

corporate information asymmetry;

complex contractual interpretation; and

uncertainty in damages.

The UAE judicial system manages this uncertainty through:

evidence rules;

authentication;

expert assistance;

judicial interpretation;

legal classification;

burden of proof;

contextual evaluation;

good faith; and

reasoned judicial determination.

43. Quick Recall Formula

E-A-A-C-J-R

E — Evidence
A — Authenticity
A — Attribution
C — Causation
J — Judicial evaluation
R — Remedy

For digital disputes:

DATA → AUTHENTICATE → ATTRIBUTE → PROVE → CLASSIFY → DECIDE

44. Conclusion

Epistemic uncertainty is an unavoidable feature of modern civil adjudication because courts generally do not observe the disputed historical event directly. They reconstruct it from evidence.

In the UAE, the importance of this issue has increased with digital transactions, electronic evidence, international commerce, complex expert disputes and technologically mediated relationships.

The UAE civil-law framework provides mechanisms through which uncertainty can be managed: evidence rules determine how information enters the adjudicative process; experts assist with technical questions; contractual interpretation identifies legal meaning; judicial reasoning evaluates material evidence; and civil-law rules determine liability and remedies.

The central distinction is therefore:

A court does not need omniscience to decide a civil dispute; it needs a legally structured method for converting uncertain information into a reasoned and authoritative determination.

Accordingly, epistemic uncertainty does not represent a failure of civil law. Rather, it identifies the central challenge that civil adjudication must manage: making legally justified decisions when complete knowledge of the underlying reality is impossible.