Moral damages at the QFC Court

The same approach shapes the QFC Court’s application of Article 202 of the Qatari Civil Code: non-pecuniary harm must be tethered to demonstrable wrongful conduct and a proven, causally connected injury. This article examines how that principle has been applied by the local Qatari courts and the QFC Court.

I. Article 202 and the statutory foundation

Article 202 of the Qatari Civil Code, derived from the Egyptian Civil Code is the legal foundation for the recovery of moral damages in Qatar. In particular, paragraphs (1) and (2) provide that:

1. Compensation for an unlawful act shall include the damage even if it is moral.
2. However, no compensation may be decided for the moral damage resulting from death except for the spouses and relatives as far as the second degree, for any pain that may befall them due to the deceased’s death.

The Civil Code extends moral damages into the contractual sphere. Article 264 expressly provides that indemnity “shall include moral damages”.

II. The local courts’ position: Cassation No. 190 of 2010

Cassation No. 190 of 2010 is a commonly referred to decision within the Court of Cassation’s jurisprudence, reflecting its interpretation of the Civil Code’s provisions on moral damages. In this judgment the Court defined the nature and purpose of compensation for moral harm, holding that:

“The injured party can avail himself of an alternative claim for moral damage inflicted on him. As the loss shall not be removed, but emerges in support thereof a gain that compensates it and there is no criterion for the right of the circumstances of the moral damage, since any damage that hurts the human being in his honour, importance, sentiment, sensations and feelings shall be virtuous to be subject for compensation, is good to be a compensation matter.” 

This jurisprudence is notable for characterising moral damages as both compensatory and consolatory, and for recognising reflective (par ricochet) moral harm.  Additionally, local First Instance practice indicates that modest moral-damages awards may be made alongside material recovery in appropriate cases.

III. The QFC Court: jurisdiction and framework

The QFC Court’s reserved approach aligns the codified civilian remedy with the instinct that intangible loss should be tethered to demonstrable wrong. The first sustained engagement under Article 202 came in Arwa Zakaria Ahmed Abu Hamdieh v Qatar First Bank [2022] QIC (F) 7, where the First Instance Circuit awarded QAR 50,000 for moral damages, confirming that the Court had jurisdiction, in conformity with Article 202, to award damages for moral damage in an appropriate case where the feelings of a claimant were injured.

The QFC Court later developed its reasoning in Khadija Al Marhoon v Ooredoo Group Company [2023] QIC (F) 5 by articulating criteria relevant to both entitlement and quantum. In this case, the First Instance Court awarded the Claimant a sum of QAR 15,000 in respect of moral damages, fixing the normal scale for moral damages at QAR 5,000 to QAR 250,000, a wide range reflecting the case-by-case methodology.

Although the appeal was not successful, the appellate court confirmed both the jurisdiction and the applicable criteria: in determining whether an award of moral damages is proportionate, “regard must be had to the type of contract in issue and the conduct of the defendant.” A conduct-and-damage threshold applies. Not every breach of an employment contract entails injured feelings warranting compensation; there must be “something in the conduct of the defendant and in the degree of injury suffered by the claimant which merits such an award”.

IV. Application of the Khadija Al-Marhoon criteria

The framework was applied in Nabila Kesraoui v MBG Corporate Services LLC [2025] QIC (F) 18,  and the QFC Court applied the Khadija Al‑Marhoon criteria; however it rejected the claimant’s moral damages claim, holding that the evidence supported the inference that the claimant’s emotional damage flowed principally from the lawful termination itself, which could not found an award of general damages.

Two more recent decisions illustrate the careful approach of the QFC Court. In Amani Amorri v QLM Services Company LLC [2025] QIC (F) 68, an employee was dismissed after her first day of work upon disclosure of her pregnancy, conduct engaging both contractual breach and a recognisable affront to dignity. In Patricia Jaecklein v SDI Sports LLC [2026] QIC (F) 12, the Court considered that the circumstances could justify an award of moral damages and indicated it would hear the parties on quantum; the judgment, however, has reserved monetary relief for further submissions and did not finally quantify moral damages in the order (as at the date of this article, the decision on quantum has not yet been handed down).

Key takeaways

• For employers, procedural defect alone will not attract moral damages; the conduct must carry an element of affront to dignity, reputation, or protected characteristics.
• For claimants, the non-pecuniary injury must be pleaded and proved with diligence. Evidence should be tied causally to wrongful conduct.
• Within the QFC Court, the emerging picture is one of structured discretion: jurisdiction is settled, the QAR 5,000–250,000 band has been identified, and the conduct threshold is being shaped by a developing body of jurisprudence illustrating the circumstances in which it is, and is not, met.