Time for Completion under UAE Construction Law: A Legal Analysis of Delay, Extensions and Contractual Risk Allocation

Time and progress obligations are a central feature of construction contracts in the United Arab Emirates, where strict adherence to programme is often critical to commercial success. While the domestic courts of the UAE generally prioritise the express terms set out in an agreement, applicable local law and practice exert significant influence over how delay is treated, particularly where contractual provisions are ambiguous or absent.

Historically, the regulation of time in construction projects in the UAE relied heavily on broad Civil Code principles and court-supervised discretion. However, the legal landscape has undergone a paradigm shift. The enactment of the Federal Arbitration Law (No. 6 of 2018), the widespread adoption of the FIDIC Suite 2017, and recent amendments to statutory limitation periods have collectively moved the industry towards a regime governed by stricter procedural standards and more rigorous contract administration.

This article examines the legal treatment of time, delay and completion within the UAE jurisdiction. It explores how the tension between rigid contractual mechanisms and the discretionary powers of the UAE Civil Code is resolved in the modern era, addressing key issues such as the formation of agreement, the assessment of delay entitlement and the evolving approach to concurrent delay.

1. Agreement
   
   

The starting point for any construction project is agreement on the time for completion. While commercially fundamental, the absence of an express completion date does not automatically invalidate a construction contract under UAE law. In such circumstances, the courts will typically imply a reasonable time for completion, having regard to the nature of the transaction, prevailing custom and the principle of good faith.

Where a time for completion is expressly agreed — for example, through specific provisions of the FIDIC Conditions — this will generally be applied by the courts in accordance with established contractual principles, particularly the mutual intention of the parties.

The Civil Code does not directly address situations where a completion date is absent. However, this does not render the obligation open-ended. An obligation to complete within a defined period arises through contractual interpretation. UAE courts recognise that contractual obligations extend beyond strict written terms to include matters that are appurtenant to the contract by virtue of law, custom and the nature of the transaction.

In a notable 2010 judgment, the Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation held that a developer’s obligation to deliver an apartment was not unlimited despite the absence of a clear completion date. As there was no evidence of meaningful progress or a realistic prospect of completion within a reasonable time, the developer was ordered to refund the purchase price.

2. Extension of Time
   
   

Extension of Time (“EOT”) provisions play a critical role in preserving the project programme and protecting contractors from exposure to delay damages. The contractual framework has evolved significantly with the widespread adoption of the FIDIC Suite 2017, now commonly used across the UAE.

Unlike earlier editions, which largely focused on retrospective claims, modern contracts impose a proactive duty of Advance Warning under Sub-Clause 8.4 of the FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Construction (Second Edition, 2017). Contractors are required to notify the employer of potential delaying events before they materialise. Failure to do so may not only prejudice the EOT claim but may also entitle the employer to recover losses arising from the absence of early warning.

Additionally, the time-bar regime has become reciprocal. Clause 20 of the 2017 Conditions imposes strict notification deadlines — typically 28 days — on both contractors and employers. Consequently, an employer who fails to notify a claim for delay damages within the prescribed period may lose that entitlement altogether, creating a significantly more balanced framework than under the 1999 edition.

3. Assessment of Entitlement
   
   

Although the Civil Code does not prescribe statutory EOT machinery, the procedural resolution of delay disputes has been transformed by the UAE Federal Arbitration Law (No. 6 of 2018).

Previously, parties were largely dependent on local courts, where rigid procedures and court-appointed experts dominated the assessment process. The 2018 Arbitration Law, aligned with the UNCITRAL Model Law, grants arbitral tribunals broad autonomy. This has enabled more sophisticated delay analysis, frequently involving party-appointed experts and internationally recognised methodologies rather than reliance on a single court expert.

In domestic litigation, however, the court-appointed expert continues to play a decisive role. As reflected in Dubai Court of Cassation jurisprudence, courts routinely delegate the factual determination of cause and effect to technical experts. A notable recent development is the increasingly rigorous treatment of concurrent delay, with experts demonstrating growing reliance on international principles even within local proceedings.

Liability for Subcontractors

The established principle remains that a main contractor is liable for the acts and omissions of its subcontractors under Article 890 of the Civil Code. However, recent regulatory developments — including Dubai Law No. 7 of 2025 — have tightened subcontractor approval requirements.

Consistent with a 2008 Dubai Court of Cassation ruling, where the employer directly appoints or entrusts a subcontractor with specific works, the main contractor may be relieved of liability. In such cases, responsibility for defective work or late completion rests with the party that appointed the subcontractor, namely the employer.

4. Time at Large
   
   

The doctrine of Time at Large — whereby failure of the EOT mechanism or employer prevention allegedly nullifies the completion date — is frequently argued in UAE construction disputes. However, the UAE legal framework does not readily embrace this concept.

Unlike jurisdictions that may disregard contractual machinery where it breaks down, UAE courts and tribunals prioritise preservation of the agreed contract. Rather than declaring completion dates or delay damages provisions void, the preferred approach is to resolve ambiguity through contractual interpretation and, where necessary, judicial supervision to prevent unjust outcomes. This ensures that agreed time obligations and penalty regimes remain operative even in complex delay scenarios.

5. Concurrent Delay
   
   

Concurrent delay remains one of the most contentious issues in UAE construction law, with a clear divergence between court litigation and arbitration.

The Court Approach

Domestic courts generally favour apportionment, deriving authority from Civil Code principles permitting the reduction of damages in proportion to a party’s contribution to harm (including Article 290). Where both employer and contractor are responsible for delay, courts — guided by expert opinion — commonly divide liability rather than adopt an all-or-nothing approach.

The Arbitration Approach

In contrast, arbitral tribunals increasingly rely on the SCL Delay and Disruption Protocol (Second Edition, 2017). Tribunals distinguish between true concurrency — which is rare — and issues such as pacing or mitigation.

Rather than mechanically splitting delay, arbitrators often apply a strict cause-and-effect analysis. Where the contractor’s delay is the dominant cause, minor employer delays may not justify full relief. Conversely, under the internationally recognised Malmaison approach, contractors may receive time but not cost for concurrent delay — a position now commonly adopted in sophisticated UAE arbitrations.

6. Prolongation Costs
   
   

An entitlement to an Extension of Time does not automatically give rise to financial compensation. Prolongation costs must be established as recoverable damages arising from a breach of contract.

Crucial Update

With effect from January 2023, Federal Decree-Law No. 50 of 2022 introduced a general five-year limitation period for commercial contractual claims. However, this does not apply uniformly across all construction disputes.

 

Certain claims may remain subject to longer limitation periods under the Civil Code, including the general fifteen-year limitation for civil obligations and the ten-year decennial liability regime applicable to structural defects. Parties must therefore carefully analyse the legal characterisation of each claim rather than assume a blanket five-year limitation period.

7. Conclusion
   
   

The regulation of time for completion in the UAE has evolved from a flexible, court-driven model into a system governed by strict procedural discipline. While Civil Code principles continue to underpin contractual relationships, the Arbitration Law of 2018 and the widespread adoption of the FIDIC Suite 2017 have shifted emphasis towards rigorous contract administration.

Contractors must now operate within reciprocal time bars, heightened notice obligations and evolving limitation regimes, leaving little room for procedural error. At the same time, the treatment of concurrent delay has diverged: domestic courts continue to apply equitable apportionment, while arbitral tribunals increasingly demand detailed cause-and-effect analysis in line with international standards.

 

 For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.