A financial expert report submitted in UAE court or arbitration proceedings has a specific structure that reflects the scope of the mandate. Legal counsel and parties who understand that structure can identify, before the objection deadline passes, where the conclusions are well-supported and where they depend on assumptions that can be challenged. Reading an expert report critically is a skill with direct consequences for litigation outcomes.
The Standard Structure
A UAE court-appointed expert's report typically contains the following sections, though the precise order and labelling varies by expert and by the nature of the assignment.
The appointment and mandate. The report opens by identifying the court order under which the expert was appointed, the date of appointment, and the specific questions the court directed the expert to answer. This section defines the legitimate scope of the report. Any finding that addresses a question not in the mandate is outside the expert's authority and can be challenged on that basis alone.
Documents reviewed. The expert lists every document they examined in preparing the report. This section is critical for two reasons. First, it allows the party to verify that the expert had access to all material documents and that nothing was withheld or overlooked. Second, it allows the party to identify if the expert relied on documents that were not authenticated or that were produced by only one party without independent verification.
Findings of fact. The expert sets out what the financial records show. This is a descriptive section, not a conclusions section. The expert reports what the bank statements, accounting records, contracts, and other documents contain. Errors in this section are often the most straightforward to challenge: if a figure is stated incorrectly, the source document can be produced to demonstrate the error.
Methodology. The expert explains the analytical method applied to the facts. In a damages calculation, this section explains whether the before-and-after method, the yardstick method, or a but-for analysis was used, and why. In a profit distribution dispute, it explains how the distributable profit was calculated. The methodology section is the primary target for technical challenges: if the method is inappropriate for the circumstances, the conclusions built on it can be displaced.
Conclusions. The expert answers each question from the court order, drawing on the findings and methodology sections. A well-structured report makes the path from evidence to conclusion transparent. A report that reaches a conclusion without adequate reasoning in the preceding sections is open to challenge for insufficient reasoning.
What to Look for When Reviewing
When reviewing an expert report on behalf of a party, the following questions identify the most productive challenges.
Did the expert stay within the mandate? A conclusion that addresses a question not in the court order, or that expresses an opinion on a legal matter rather than a financial one, falls outside the mandate. Courts are attentive to mandate compliance.
Are the key figures correct? Cross-reference every significant number against the source documents listed. Transcription errors in financial figures occur and, when identified, undermine confidence in the overall analysis.
Is the methodology appropriate? The same financial question can be answered by different methodologies that produce materially different results. If the expert selected a method without justifying the choice, or if an alternative method would produce a different outcome, this is a basis for a technical objection supported by a party-commissioned expert.
What assumptions does the conclusion depend on? Future-looking calculations require assumptions. Identify the most significant assumptions and assess whether they are supported by evidence in the report or whether they are asserted without documentation. Each unsupported assumption is a potential objection.
Filing a Formal Objection
Formal objections to a UAE court expert's report must be filed within the period the court fixes after the report is received. This period is typically short, sometimes as few as ten days. Legal counsel should confirm the deadline immediately on receiving the report and begin the technical review at once.
An objection that is specific, references particular paragraphs, and is supported by documentary evidence or by a party-commissioned expert's analysis is substantially more effective than a general assertion that the report is incorrect. Courts expect technical objections to engage with the methodology and the numbers, not simply to express disagreement with the result.