Design Defects In UAE Construction: Who Bears Responsibility — Contractor, Consultant Or Designer?

Design defects are among the most challenging issues to resolve in construction disputes as responsibility for a defective element can arise at different stages. A problem can begin with the design, emerge from the manner of execution or result from inadequate supervision. Establishing liability therefore goes beyond identifying the party physically performing the defective work.

 

The UAE construction liability regime understands these distinctions, though it imposes specific statutory obligations in relation to serious structural defects. Federal Decree by Law No. (25) of 2025 Promulgating the Civil Transactions Law came into force on June 1, 2026, replacing Federal Law No. (5) of 1985 concerning the Civil Transactions Law of the United Arab Emirates. The construction (muqawala) provisions are mainly contained in Articles 812 to 839, while the decennial liability regime is addressed in Articles 821 to 824.

 

Which Law Applies?

 

The starting point is determining which law governs the dispute. The new Civil Transactions Law generally operates prospectively while contracts concluded before June 1, 2026 remain subject to the previous law, subject to applicable transitional provisions, including those relating to limitation periods. Where a construction contract was entered into before that date, the relevant provisions of the former law should therefore be considered. Under that legislation, the construction provisions were contained in Articles 872 to 896, with decennial liability addressed in Articles 880 to 883.

 

Many of the muqawala provisions are default rules and can be modified by agreement between the parties, subject to mandatory statutory protections, including those governing decennial liability. It is therefore not enough to consider the legislation in isolation. The construction contract, its schedules and technical documents must be read alongside the applicable statutory provisions to establish how responsibility was allocated.

 

Design Responsibility And Workmanship

 

The first substantive issue is whether the alleged defect lies in the design itself or in the contractor's execution of that design.

 

Article 822(1) of the new Civil Transactions Law provides that an engineer whose role is confined to preparing the design is responsible for defects attributable to the design, but not for defects from the method of execution. Where the contractor has responsibility for carrying out the works and departs from approved drawings, specifications or the agreed methodology, responsibility may instead lie with the contractor.

 

The distinction can become particularly important when a contractor argues that it simply followed instructions issued by the employer or consultant. Approval of a drawing does not necessarily absolve a contractor from responsibility for poor workmanship or an improper method of execution. At the same time, a contractor should not automatically become responsible for a fundamental design error simply because it constructed the faulty element.

 

The contractual allocation of duties is therefore critical. The scope of services, specifications, drawings, method statements, approvals, site instructions and project correspondence should be considered together. These documents can help identify what each party was expected to identify, review, approve or execute.

 

Design-And-Build Contracts

 

The analysis becomes more complicated under a design-and-build arrangement. Unlike a traditional build-only contract, the contractor may take responsibility for both designing and executing the works. Its obligations may consequently extend beyond workmanship to the adequacy, integration and coordination of the design.

 

A contractor cannot necessarily avoid responsibility by arguing that a defect originated with a designer if it had accepted overall design responsibility under the contract. Conversely, an employer seeking compensation must establish the relevant contractual obligation and demonstrate a connection between the alleged design deficiency and the loss suffered.

 

Design responsibility, review obligations, reliance on information supplied by the employer and procedures for raising discrepancies should therefore be addressed clearly in the contract. Equally important is the project record: concerns about drawings, specifications or design coordination should be raised promptly and documented rather than left to be reconstructed after a dispute has arisen.

 

Employer-Provided Specifications

 

Another complication arises where the employer provides specifications, drawings or design criteria. A contractor may argue that it was contractually obligated to build in accordance with that information and should not be held responsible for an inherent defect in the employer's design.

 

Article 816(3) requires the contractor, where the contract does not provide otherwise, to notify the employer immediately if defects appear in materials supplied by the employer or if other circumstances prevent proper execution. A failure to give notice may expose the contractor to liability for the consequences.

 

The provision does not explicitly refer to designs supplied by the employer, and its application to design inconsistencies has yet to receive clear judicial treatment. It may nevertheless be argued that a serious design inconsistency or impractical detail consists of an “other factor” that prevents proper execution. For contractors, the safer approach is therefore to raise concerns in writing as soon as an apparent design problem affecting execution is identified, or ought reasonably to have been identified.

 

The Consultant's Role In Supervision

 

Supervision raises a separate question. Under Article 822(1), an engineer whose appointment is limited to design is responsible for defects attributable to that design. Article 822(2), however, provides that an engineer whose role is limited to supervising execution is jointly liable with the contractor for execution defects occurring under that engineer's supervision. The previous law addressed the position of a design-only engineer but did not explicitly deal with a supervision-only engineer in the same way.

 

The precise scope of the consultant's appointment is therefore important. Attendance at a site or periodic inspection does not necessarily mean that a consultant took on responsibility for every aspect of construction. However, where supervision forms part of the consultant's contractual duties, shortcomings in that supervision may lead to liability.

 

The distinction can be particularly important in major projects involving several layers of consultants, specialist contractors and subcontractors. The question is not simply whether a consultant visited the site, but what the consultant was contractually required to inspect, monitor, approve or report and whether the alleged defect falls within those responsibilities.

 

Where Several Parties Contributed To The Defect

 

Construction defects often have more than one cause. A design omission may be compounded by an inappropriate construction method, inadequate inspection, poor materials, insufficient testing or subsequent alterations. Expert evidence can therefore play a central role in determining technical causation.

 

A construction expert may review design documents, specifications, site records, inspection reports, testing results, correspondence, photographs and as-built information to determine how the defect developed and whether the conduct of more than one party contributed to the consequence.

 

This distinction matters because contractual responsibility and technical causation do not always point to the same party. Evidence must establish not only what failed, but how and why it failed, which party was responsible for the relevant stage of the works and whether another participant contributed to the resulting damage.

 

In a complex dispute, the chronology can be as important as the technical evidence. A contractor's discovery of a design inconsistency, a consultant's approval of a revised detail or an employer's instruction to proceed despite a warning may each affect the eventual assessment of responsibility.

 

The Statutory Decennial Regime

 

The statutory decennial liability regime operates alongside the contractual analysis described above. Article 821 makes the contractor and engineer jointly and severally liable to the employer for ten years for the total or partial collapse of buildings or fixed installations, as well as defects that threaten their structural integrity and safety. Under Article 821(1), the regime applies where the engineer prepared the design for execution by the contractor under the engineer's supervision. Where the engineer's role is limited to design without supervision, Article 822(1) confines the engineer's liability to defects attributable to the design.

 

The decennial regime does not depend on establishing fault. Liability may still arise where the defect resulted from a problem with the ground or the employer authorised the defective work. A contractor engaged on a build-only basis may therefore still face decennial liability even though it did not take on the design.

 

Article 823 provides that any agreement seeking to exclude or limit this liability is void. Article 824 further requires a claim to be brought within three years from the collapse or discovery of the defect.

 

Article 821(4) provides that the statutory decennial regime does not govern the contractor's recourse against subcontractors. Any such claim must instead be determined under the relevant contractual arrangements and applicable general legal principles.

 

Conclusion

 

Responsibility for a design defect in a UAE construction project cannot be determined simply by asking whether the contractor, consultant or designer was involved in the affected work. The answer depends on the law applicable to the contract, the contractual allocation of design, execution and supervision responsibilities, the nature and seriousness of the defect, the conduct of the parties during construction and the technical evidence establishing causation.

 

For developers, contractors and engineering consultants, clearly defined scopes of responsibility remain one of the best ways of reducing uncertainty. Prompt notice of design or execution concerns, careful documentation of instructions and approvals and comprehensive project records can also prove critical when a defect later develops into a dispute. In projects involving several professionals and contractual layers, the parties' responsibilities should be clear before construction begins rather than reconstructed after the failure occurs.