Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 issuing the new Civil Transactions Law takes effect on 1 June 2026, repealing Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 in its entirety. This is the most significant overhaul of UAE private law in forty years.
For UAE corporates with real estate exposure, the change is not theoretical. Familiar article numbers have shifted, established doctrines have been recodified with sharper edges, and a number of provisions have been introduced that did not exist under the old Code. The new framework reaches into off-plan sale and purchase agreements, leases, muqawala contracts, MOUs, reservation agreements, Form F transactions, musataha arrangements, joint ventures with a land element, and the day-to-day management of built assets.
This guide is written for UAE-based corporate owners, developers, landlords, and in-house counsel. It walks through the property-relevant changes by reference to the new article numbers, explains the practical consequences, and ends with a checklist of action items for the weeks before the law takes effect.
1. The headline: a recodification, not an amendment
The 1985 Civil Code has formed the backbone of UAE private law since its enactment. Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 does not amend it; it replaces it. The new Code is structured into a Preliminary Section on General Provisions and four Books on Obligations, Nominate Contracts, Real Rights, and Real Securities, running to 1,422 Articles.
Three points need to be internalised at the outset.
First, the law applies prospectively. Article 4(1) of the new Code is explicit that the law applies from its date of entry into force and does not apply retroactively to preceding facts and acts, unless the law provides otherwise. Contracts concluded before 1 June 2026 will, as a general rule, continue to be governed by the substantive provisions of the 1985 Code. Contracts concluded on or after 1 June 2026 will be governed by the new Code.
Second, time limits run on the Gregorian calendar. Article 9 confirms that time limits are calculated according to the Gregorian calendar unless the law provides otherwise. This codifies what was already the dominant practice but removes residual ambiguity, particularly in family-owned property holdings and inheritance-linked structures.
Third, specific transitional rules apply to limitation periods. Articles 6 and 7 contain detailed transitional provisions for the barring of claims by lapse of time. New limitation provisions apply from the date the new Code enters into force to every period not yet completed; if a new period is shorter than the former period, the new period runs from the law’s entry into force; if the remainder of the former period is shorter than the new period, the former remainder governs. In practice, in-house teams need to map all active and prospective limitation issues against both the old and new periods.
2. Article 19(2): UAE law governs every contract over UAE immovable property
For corporates engaged in cross-border transactions involving UAE land or buildings, Article 19 is the provision to read first.
Article 19(1) preserves party autonomy on choice of law for contractual obligations as a default rule. Article 19(2), however, provides that contracts concluded concerning immovable property shall be governed by the law of its location. The provision is brief but consequential: regardless of any contrary choice-of-law clause, a contract relating to UAE immovable property is governed by UAE law.
The practical implications for corporates managing onshore portfolios:
The choice-of-law clause in your standard SPA, off-plan reservation, or asset-sale agreement cannot route a UAE-immovable transaction to English, DIFC, or any other foreign law. For SPV-level share transfers where the underlying asset is UAE property, careful structuring is required to clarify which contracts attract Article 19(2) treatment (the share sale, the underlying property holding documents, or both) and which remain open to foreign choice of law.
For framework agreements that cover both UAE and non-UAE property, the choice-of-law clause should be split. A single clause covering both will be at best unclear and at worst partially unenforceable.
For arbitration clauses, governing law and seat of arbitration remain distinct concepts. Parties may still elect a foreign seat (for example, DIFC-LCIA, LCIA London, ICC Paris) but the substantive law applied to the immovable-property contract will, under Article 19(2), be UAE law.
3. Articles 121 and 122: pre-contractual good faith is now statutory
Under the 1985 Code, the duty of good faith in pre-contractual dealings was a doctrinal principle supported by case law. Under the new Code, it is codified and considerably sharper.
Article 121 provides that the initiation, conduct, and termination of pre-contractual negotiations must be in accordance with the requirements of good faith. A party who negotiates or terminates negotiations in bad faith is liable to compensate the actual damage suffered by the other party. Compensation does not, however, extend to lost expected benefits from the unconcluded contract or lost opportunities, unless agreed otherwise. Article 121(4) expressly defines bad faith as including the deliberate failure to disclose material information that has a substantive effect on the validity of the contract.
Article 122 goes further. A party to negotiations or a contract who has knowledge of information of decisive importance to the consent of the other party must disclose it whenever the other party’s ignorance is presumed or they have placed their trust in the contracting party. Disclosure is described as an obligation falling on both parties, requiring each to exercise due care to provide information related to the negotiations, the contract intended to be concluded, and the practical circumstances and facts of the contractual process. The party claiming concealment bears the burden of proving it; the other party bears the burden of proving disclosure.
For real estate practitioners, this has direct consequences:
- Reservation Agreements and MOUs for off-plan and resale transactions now sit in a clearer statutory frame. A seller who withholds known structural issues, unsettled service charges, pending disputes, registration defects, or regulatory non-compliance carries a clearer legal exposure even if no SPA is ever concluded.
- Form F transactions in Dubai must now be conducted against an explicit statutory benchmark of good faith. Buyer-side and seller-side disclosure protocols should be reviewed accordingly.
- Broker representations and marketing materials that materially misstate the property carry sharper consequences at the pre-contract stage.
- Diligence questionnaires issued by buyers should be designed to put the seller on notice of what is considered “decisive information” by the buyer, anchoring any later claim of concealment under Article 122.
- Documentary trails of disclosure become important. The party who proves it disclosed wins; the party who relies on memory loses.
For drafting, corporate teams should consider an express disclosure schedule in major SPAs setting out what has been disclosed, when, and through what document, with a clear statement that disclosure of those matters discharges the Article 122 obligation in respect of them.
4. Article 224: hardship and exceptional circumstances
Article 224 of the new Code reads as follows: if exceptional, general circumstances arise that could not have been foreseen at the time of contracting, and as a result of their occurrence the performance of the contractual obligation becomes onerous for the debtor, threatening them with serious loss, the court may, depending on the circumstances and after balancing the interests of the parties, reduce the onerous obligation to a reasonable limit or rule for the rescission of the contract. Any agreement to the contrary is void.
This is the same broad doctrine that practitioners knew under Article 249 of the 1985 Code. The wording has been tightened and the location in the new Code has moved, but the substance is recognisable.
What deserves attention is the non-waivable nature of Article 224. The final sentence — any agreement to the contrary is void — confirms that parties cannot contract out of the court’s power to rebalance a contract that has become onerous due to unforeseen exceptional circumstances. For long-term real estate arrangements, this matters:
- Long-term lease agreements where market rents have shifted materially after signing remain open to judicial rebalancing.
- Off-plan SPAs affected by construction delays from supply chain or regional disruption sit within this provision’s reach.
- Development agreements and joint ventures where the original economic bargain has become unworkable due to circumstances no party could foresee are candidates for Article 224 application.
- Muqawala contracts (separately addressed in Article 829(3) — see below) have a specific construction-context version of the same doctrine.
Pre-litigation negotiating positions should reflect the realistic prospect that a court may modify rather than terminate a contract. For drafting, force majeure and hardship clauses need to be more carefully calibrated than under generic boilerplate, defining who bears which risks and providing for adjustment mechanisms within the contract itself, so that the court is interpreting a structured allocation of risk rather than filling a vacuum.
5. Articles 268 to 272: custodian liability for buildings and machinery
The custodian-liability regime in the new Code is set out in a dedicated Part titled “Liability of the Guardian of Things, Animals, and Buildings”, running from Article 268 to Article 272. The substance is sharper and the scope is broader than corporates familiar with the old Code may expect.
Article 268 defines the guardian of a thing as any person who, personally or through another, exercises actual control over it. The owner is presumed to be the guardian unless evidence is provided that guardianship has passed to another. For landlords who delegate maintenance to property managers, owners associations, or facility management companies, the presumption sits with the owner unless rebuttable evidence is produced.
Article 270 addresses building collapse. The guardian of a building, even if not its owner, is liable for harm caused by the collapse of the building, including a partial collapse, unless it is proven that the harm was due to an external cause for which the guardian is not responsible, or that the incident is not attributable to negligence in maintenance, old age, or a defect in the building. The wording places the evidential burden on the guardian. In a Dubai or Abu Dhabi context, where buildings span a wide range of vintages and where service-charge disputes routinely affect maintenance budgets, this is a meaningful exposure.
Article 271 extends liability to anyone who has under their control things requiring special care to prevent harm, or mechanical machinery. The provision covers harm caused by these items except where the harm could not be prevented. For buildings with significant mechanical plant chillers, lifts, generators, transformers, escalators, automatic doors the owner sits within Article 271 by default, subject to evidence of who exercises actual control.
Article 272 is novel in its detail. Anyone threatened with harm from a building, animal, mechanical machinery, or things requiring special care may require the guardian or owner to take preventive measures. If preventive measures are not taken within an appropriate time, the threatened party may apply to the court to authorise measures at the expense of the guardian. In urgent cases, the threatened party may take necessary measures at their own expense without prior court authorisation, subject to the court later assessing whether urgency existed and what costs were necessary.
The practical reading for corporate owners and in-house counsel:
- Insurance limits should be reviewed against the strengthened custodian regime, with particular attention to public liability cover for buildings with significant mechanical plant.
- Maintenance contracts and inspection logs need to be capable of demonstrating active discharge of the custodian duty, not passive ownership.
- Service and facility-management agreements should expressly allocate the custodian role where this is intended (and confirm that the FM provider holds adequate insurance), recognising that Article 268’s presumption sits with the owner unless rebutted.
- Owners associations and master developers in jointly-owned properties should review their indemnification matrices in light of the joint-control reality of multi-unit buildings.
- For mixed-use and industrial portfolios, Article 272’s preventive remedy means tenants and neighbours have a clearer pathway to compel preventive works. Internal escalation procedures for receipt of such notices should be reviewed.
6. Article 510: hidden defect claims now run for one year
Under the 1985 Code, a buyer’s claim for warranty in respect of a latent defect was barred after six months from delivery. Article 510 of the new Code provides that a claim for warranty in respect of a defect shall not be admissible upon the lapse of one year from the day following the delivery of the subject matter of the sale, unless the seller has undertaken to provide a longer warranty period. The seller may not rely on this period if it is established that the defect was concealed by fraud on their part.
The doubling of the limitation period from six months to one year is a meaningful rebalancing in favour of buyers. For real estate transactions:
- Off-plan and resale buyers have twice as long to identify and assert claims for hidden structural or mechanical defects that were not apparent at handover. This is particularly significant for defects that emerge only with seasonal or operational cycles (water ingress, AC performance, plumbing under sustained use).
- Sellers and developers carry a longer post-completion exposure. Reserves, warranty schedules, and any reps-and-warranties insurance terms should be adjusted accordingly.
- SPA drafting particularly on the buyer side should ensure the one-year period is preserved and not inadvertently waived. Sellers may seek to contractually shorten the period; whether such waivers will be enforced against retail buyers is something we will see develop in early case law under the new Code.
- Where handover occurs around the 1 June 2026 boundary, the question of which limitation period applies will turn on when the contract was concluded, not on when handover occurred. This is worth confirming in each transaction.
Article 510 should be read together with Articles 493 to 509, which contain the substantive defect-warranty regime broadly continuous with the old Code but with cleaner drafting on what constitutes a latent defect, the buyer’s options, and the seller’s defences.
7. Article 1212: a new statutory action to stop new works
Article 1212 of the new Code is a provision that does not have a direct parallel in the 1985 Code in the same form. It provides that whoever has possessed an immovable property and has continued to possess it for a full year, and fears, for reasonable cause, a disturbance arising from new works that threaten their possession, may bring the matter before the court seeking to stop such works, provided that the works have not been completed and that one year has not elapsed since their commencement.
The court may either prohibit continuation of the works or authorise their continuation, and in either case may order the provision of appropriate security to compensate the works owner if the objection turns out to be unfounded, or to secure removal of the works if the possessor’s claim ultimately succeeds.
This opens a more direct route for corporate property owners to halt:
- Unauthorised construction by an adjoining owner threatening building integrity.
- Works carried out by a co-owner of a jointly-owned plot without proper authorisation.
- Activities by a contractor or sub-contractor exceeding the scope of permitted works and risking damage to neighbouring property.
- Master-developer or sub-developer works affecting third-party rights within a master community.
The threshold elements deserve attention: the claimant must be a possessor of the immovable for at least one year; the works must not be complete; and the action must be brought within one year of the works’ commencement. The remedy is preventive in nature — proof of actual damage already suffered is not required, but a real threat to possession is.
For corporates managing multiple sites, Article 1212 will likely become a routine first-step option in boundary disputes, party-wall issues, and contested works on shared facilities. On the defensive side, developers and contractors should expect these applications more frequently than under the 1985 Code, and project documentation (permits, NOCs, neighbour notifications) should be capable of supporting a rapid response.
8. Articles 1254 and 1255: registration is now a validity condition for Musataha
The musataha the real right entitling its holder to construct or plant on land owned by another was already recognised under the 1985 Code and is widely used in Abu Dhabi for non-national development and in Dubai for ground-lease and concession arrangements. Under the new Code, the regime has been tightened.
Article 1254 defines the musataha as a principal real right (jus in rem) which the owner of the property grants to the Musateh (the holder of the musataha right), entitling the latter to erect a building or to plant on the land.
Article 1255 is the consequential provision: the musataha must be concluded by virtue of a contract executed between the owner and the Musateh, specifying the rights and obligations of the parties, and it shall be registered with the competent authority. Any unregistered disposition shall be deemed void.
This is the change in-house counsel should not miss. Under the old Code and emirate-level legislation, registration of a musataha was already an enforceability requirement against third parties. Under the new Code, registration is now a validity condition between the contracting parties themselves. An unregistered musataha is not merely unenforceable against third parties it is void.
Practical consequences:
- Unregistered or partially registered musataha arrangements common in legacy ground-lease structures, intra-group development arrangements, joint ventures with a land element, and certain government-granted concessions must be audited now. Where registration has been deferred, parties should formalise registration before 1 June 2026.
- Investors acquiring assets subject to a musataha encumbrance in due diligence should treat registration as a closing condition, not a post-completion item.
- Title reports prepared before 2026 may not reflect the strict validity regime. Live transactions should have title searches refreshed.
- Mortgagees taking security over a musataha right must verify registration as part of perfection. Article 1256 confirms that the musataha may be assigned or mortgaged, with both parties’ approval, and only after the disposition is registered with the competent authority.
Articles 1257 to 1264 contain the substantive musataha regime obligations of the Musateh (using the property for contracted purposes, completing works within agreed timeframes, not changing the purpose of use without owner and competent-authority approval), the term (Article 1258 allows the parties to agree the term; if not specified, either party may terminate on appropriate notice), and termination triggers (Article 1260 including failure to pay agreed consideration for six months unless otherwise agreed). Article 1261 confirms the default rule that buildings, facilities, and plantings revert to the property owner on expiry of the musataha period, unless otherwise agreed.
For corporate owners, the musataha provisions are commercially flexible but procedurally strict. The registration discipline is non-negotiable.
9. Article 816 and Article 829: muqawala in the new Code
The muqawala chapter has been renumbered. Construction contracts that were governed by Articles 872 to 896 of the 1985 Code are now governed by Articles 812 to 839 of the new Code. For active construction programmes, three provisions deserve immediate attention.
Article 816(3) sets out the contractor’s notice obligation. If defects arise or appear during the execution of the work in materials provided by the employer, or if other factors arise that would hinder the execution of the work in appropriate conditions, the contractor must immediately notify the employer. If the contractor fails to give such notice, they are liable for all consequences resulting from such failure.
The strict word here is immediately. The new Code does not define a reasonable timeframe; what is “immediate” will be determined by the courts in early case law. For employers, this strengthens the documentary trail of notices; for contractors, a defensible notice protocol is now part of operational compliance, not optional best practice. Internal site-management procedures should be reviewed to ensure that triggering events are escalated and notices are issued within a timeframe no court could later characterise as delayed.
Article 829 addresses the lump-sum muqawala. The general rule under Article 829(1) is that where a muqawala contract is concluded on an agreed design for a lump-sum remuneration, the contractor cannot claim any increase even if material prices, worker remunerations, or other expenses have increased. Article 829(2) reiterates that no increase is payable for modifications or additions to the design unless the modification is due to a fault attributable to the employer, or is made with the employer’s authorisation and they have agreed with the contractor on the increase.
Article 829(3) is the muqawala-specific hardship rebalancing rule. If the contractual equilibrium between the obligations of the employer and the contractor is disrupted due to general exceptional circumstances that could not have been foreseen at the time of contracting, undermining the basis upon which financial assessment of the muqawala contract was founded, the court may, after balancing the parties’ interests, order the restoration of contractual equilibrium, including the extension of the execution period, the increase or reduction of the remuneration, or rescission of the contract.
This is more explicit than the general Article 224 hardship provision and gives courts express authority to reach into the construction price as well as the timetable.
For developers and corporate employers, all live construction documentation should be reviewed against the new numbering. Standard-form contracts (FIDIC, bespoke domestic forms) that incorporate UAE civil law by reference need their cross-references updated. Provisions on extensions of time, variation procedures, and price adjustment mechanisms should be calibrated against Article 829(3), so that contractually agreed mechanisms align with what the court would otherwise impose.
10. Article 106: the abuse-of-rights doctrine refined
Article 106 of the new Code restates and refines the abuse-of-rights doctrine. Anyone who unlawfully exercises their rights is liable. The exercise of a right is deemed unlawful in any of four cases: where the intent to cause harm is present; where the interests sought are contrary to law, public order, or public morals; where the anticipated interests are disproportionate to the harm inflicted upon others; or where the exercise exceeds what is established by custom and usage.
For real estate practitioners, this is a doctrine to remember in three settings:
- Aggressive enforcement of contractual rights by landlords, sellers, or developers for example, technical termination of a lease for a minor and curable breach, where the consequences for the tenant are wholly disproportionate to the breach.
- Possessory disputes between co-owners or neighbours where one party’s exercise of a strictly legal right (e.g. blocking access, refusing reasonable cooperation on a party wall) inflicts harm wholly disproportionate to any legitimate interest.
- Cheque enforcement and similar self-help measures that, while technically available, are deployed in a way that goes beyond legitimate commercial purpose.
The “disproportionate interests” limb in Article 106(c) is the limb most likely to feature in arguments before the onshore courts. It gives the court a clear statutory hook to refuse to enforce a right whose exercise is technically lawful but commercially disproportionate.
11. The transitional question: which Code applies to what
Article 4(1) of the new Code, read together with Article 3 of the issuing Decree, produces the following framework:
- Contracts concluded before 1 June 2026 continue to be governed by the substantive provisions of the 1985 Civil Code, except where the new law expressly provides otherwise.
- Contracts concluded on or after 1 June 2026 are governed by the new Code.
- Limitation periods are subject to specific transitional rules under Articles 6 and 7 — new limitation provisions apply from 1 June 2026 to every period not yet completed, with the further safeguard that where a new period is shorter than the old, the new period runs from the law’s entry into force, and where the remainder of the former period is shorter, the former remainder governs.
- Evidence rules follow the law in force at the time the means of evidence was prepared, or ought to have been prepared (Article 8).
The practical consequence is that two regimes will run in parallel for years as long-term leases, off-plan SPAs, and muqawala contracts from the pre-June 2026 period work through to completion or dispute. For corporate property holders managing portfolios with mixed contract dates, we recommend tagging contracts by governing Code at the file level. Internal pleading templates should reflect dual-Code citation in the transitional period.
A particular issue to watch is variations and renewals after 1 June 2026. Whether a material variation or renewal of an existing contract creates a new contract (governed by the new Code) or amends an existing contract (continuing under the old Code) will become an early battleground. Variations and renewals should be drafted with deliberate clarity on which regime is intended to apply.
What corporates and in-house counsel should be doing now
In the weeks before 1 June 2026, we recommend the following workstreams:
Template review. All standard contract templates SPAs, leases, reservation agreements, MOUs, muqawala contracts, framework agreements, service contracts should be reviewed against the new Code. Governing-law clauses (Article 19(2)), force majeure and hardship provisions (Article 224 and, for muqawala, Article 829(3)), hidden-defects warranties (Article 510), and pre-contractual disclosure protocols (Articles 121 and 122) all warrant direct attention.
Musataha audit. Every musataha right in your portfolio held by your entity or encumbering your land should be confirmed as fully registered with the competent authority. Where registration is incomplete, this should be resolved before 1 June 2026 to avoid the Article 1255 voidness consequence.
Title and diligence refresh. Live transactions completing close to or after 1 June 2026 should have title searches refreshed, particularly where musataha, usufruct, or long-lease rights feature.
Custodian-liability stress test. Insurance limits, maintenance contracts, inspection logs, and indemnification clauses across the built-asset portfolio should be reviewed against the strengthened Articles 268 to 272 regime. Owners of mixed-use buildings, industrial facilities, and developments with significant mechanical plant should pay particular attention.
Construction portfolio review. Active and prospective muqawala contracts should be reviewed for the renumbered provisions, with particular attention to the strict notice obligation under Article 816(3) and the lump-sum and hardship rebalancing rules under Article 829.
Internal knowledge update. Article-number references in internal precedent files, training materials, and template clauses need updating. We recommend a dual-citation approach in the transitional period old Code and new Code numbering side by side so pleadings on both old and new contracts can be supported from the same internal resource.
Litigation queue check. Matters currently in pre-litigation or early proceedings where the cause of action arose under the 1985 Code should be confirmed as proceeding under the 1985 Code’s substantive provisions. The transitional rule protects this, but careful citation in pleadings is essential.
Limitation diary. Active and prospective limitation issues should be mapped against both old and new periods, applying the Articles 6 and 7 transitional rules.
Frequently asked questions
When does the new UAE Civil Transactions Law come into force?
The new Civil Code, issued by Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, takes effect on 1 June 2026, repealing Federal Law No. 5 of 1985 in its entirety.
Does the new Civil Code apply to contracts signed before 1 June 2026?
As a general rule, no. Article 4(1) of the new Code confirms that the law applies prospectively. Contracts concluded before 1 June 2026 continue to be governed by the substantive provisions of the 1985 Code, except where the new Code expressly provides otherwise. Specific transitional rules apply to limitation periods under Articles 6 and 7.
Does the new Civil Code apply in the DIFC and ADGM?
No. The DIFC and ADGM operate distinct common-law-inspired legal systems. The new Civil Code governs onshore UAE civil transactions. Cross-jurisdiction structures require careful selection of governing law and forum.
Can a foreign-law clause displace UAE law in a contract about UAE property?
No. Article 19(2) provides that contracts concerning immovable property are governed by the law of its location. UAE-immovable contracts are therefore governed by UAE substantive law regardless of any contrary choice-of-law clause. A foreign seat of arbitration remains possible, but the applicable substantive law to the immovable-property contract will be UAE law.
Are existing musataha rights at risk under the new Code?
A musataha right that is not registered with the competent authority is void under Article 1255 of the new Code. Existing musataha arrangements should be audited and any registration gaps closed before 1 June 2026.
Has the hidden-defects warranty period changed?
Yes. Article 510 of the new Code provides that a claim for warranty in respect of a latent defect is barred after one year from the day following delivery, unless the seller has undertaken a longer warranty period or concealed the defect by fraud. The previous period was six months.
Has the duty of good faith in negotiations changed?
Yes. Articles 121 and 122 codify the duty of good faith in pre-contractual negotiations and the duty to disclose information of decisive importance to the other party’s consent. Bad-faith conduct in negotiations exposes the offending party to liability for actual damage caused, even if no contract is concluded.
What happens to muqawala contracts under the new Code?
The muqawala provisions have been renumbered to Articles 812 to 839. The notice obligation on contractors under Article 816(3) is strict failure to immediately notify the employer of defects in employer-supplied materials or other hindering factors transfers the consequences onto the contractor. Article 829(3) gives the court express authority to rebalance a lump-sum muqawala by extending time, varying remuneration, or rescinding the contract where exceptional circumstances have disrupted the contractual equilibrium.
Does the new Civil Code change tenancy law?
Tenancy law in Dubai remains primarily governed by Law No. 26 of 2007 and its amendments, and in Abu Dhabi by emirate-level tenancy legislation. The Civil Code provides the general framework against which those specialised regimes operate. The new Code’s changes to good faith, hardship, and custodian liability will, however, affect how tenancy disputes are argued and assessed by the RDC, RDSC, and onshore courts.
Do I need to do anything before 1 June 2026?
For corporates with UAE real estate exposure, yes. Templates, musataha registrations, custodian-liability insurance, construction documentation, and internal precedent files all warrant a structured review. See the action checklist above.
How DY Lawyers and Legal Consultants can assist
We act for UAE-based corporates, in-house legal teams, developers, landlords, investors, and family offices on the full spectrum of property and contractual matters affected by Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025. Our work in the period before and after the law takes effect includes:
- Template and standard-form contract review against the new Code.
- Musataha audits and registration projects.
- SPA, lease, and muqawala drafting calibrated to the new Code.
- Pre-contractual disclosure protocols and diligence framework design.
- RDC, RDSC, ADREC, and court litigation and pre-litigation strategy.
- Cross-border transaction structuring involving UAE immovable property.
- Training sessions for in-house legal and compliance teams on the new Code.
We can be contacted on +971 55 147 0302 or through dylegalconsultants.com.
This article is for general information only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon in respect of any specific transaction or dispute. Article numbers, wording, and interpretive guidance are based on the published text of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 issuing the Civil Transactions Law. The application of the new Code to any particular set of facts will depend on the specific circumstances and on the interpretive approach taken by the courts following the law’s entry into force on 1 June 2026.
