The Conceptual Ambiguity of 'Subject Matter'
The 'subject matter' of a civil action is a fundamental pillar of litigation, yet it remains one of the most debated concepts in legal theory. Broadly, it refers to the specific relief or remedy the plaintiff seeks from the court. However, scholars are divided into two primary schools of thought: the legal theory and the factual theory. Understanding which approach a jurisdiction adopts is vital for determining the scope of res judicata.
The Legal vs. Factual Theories
The legal theory posits that the subject matter is defined by the legal right or status being asserted (e.g., ownership, a contractual obligation). In contrast, the factual theory argues that the subject matter is defined by the material benefit or the specific object of the dispute (e.g., a specific sum of money or a piece of property). The choice between these theories impacts how courts handle amendments to claims and the identity of disputes.
The Position of UAE and Comparative Law
While the UAE legislator does not provide a rigid definition, judicial practice often leans towards a hybrid approach. The subject matter is generally viewed as the ultimate goal of the claimant, which must be clearly defined to allow the court to issue an enforceable judgment. This study explores how these theories manifest in the UAE Civil Procedure Law and their implications for litigants.