The development of collective redress mechanisms in Oman reflects the gradual institutionalisation of adjudicatory processes within a civil law framework informed by Islamic jurisprudential principles and modern administrative reform. Although Oman has not adopted a codified “class action” regime akin to common law jurisdictions, the underlying concept of collective harm and shared remedy has long existed within the Omani legal order ‒ manifesting historically through communal and conciliatory practices and, in modern times, through procedural and regulatory innovation.

Pre-Codification and Customary Foundations

Prior to the formal codification of civil procedure, the resolution of collective disputes in Oman was governed predominantly by Sharia-derived principles and customary practice. Disputes implicating multiple parties arising from land, trade, or communal entitlement were traditionally heard by the judge or resolved through tribal conciliation councils (Majalis al-ṣulḥ).

These forums recognised a form of communal representation, whereby harm affecting a defined collective such as merchants or neighbourhoods could be advanced through an appointed elder or respected intermediary. The focus was not procedural formalism but restorative justice, in line with the Sharia maxim al-ḍarar yuzal (“harm must be removed”). Such practices embodied an early articulation of collective redress grounded in the moral and social imperative of preserving community equilibrium.

This pre-codification period thus provided the normative foundation for later procedural acceptance of representative action, anchored in the public policy objective of social harmony rather than adversarial adjudication.

Codification and Institutionalisation

Following the accession of His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said in 1970, Oman underwent a comprehensive transformation of its legal system, transitioning from dispersed customary mechanisms to a unified judiciary grounded in codified law. The enactment of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law (CCPL) by Royal Decree 29/2002 marked the first comprehensive codification of procedural rights and obligations within Oman.

Although the statute did not introduce a class action framework, Articles 60, 61 and 121 of the CCPL formally codified the doctrines of joinder and procedural consolidation, enabling multiple claimants sharing a single legal cause to litigate collectively. This reform reflected a deliberate policy of administrative rationalisation and judicial efficiency, consistent with broader legislative efforts during the period to centralise adjudication, reduce claim fragmentation, and ensure procedural uniformity

In practical terms, the codification transformed long-standing communal petitions into a structured procedural mechanism allowing the collective prosecution of claims within the civil and commercial circuits of the primary courts. This shift marked a pivotal moment in Omani procedural development: a transition from informal, conciliatory dispute resolution to institutionalised collective adjudication within a modern judiciary.

Regulatory Expansion and Public Enforcement

The subsequent phase of development was characterised by the emergence of sectoral regulatory authorities endowed with statutory enforcement powers. Throughout the early 2000s, Oman established specialised regulators including the Capital Market Authority, the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, and later the Public Authority for Consumer Protection (PACP) ‒ each mandated to safeguard collective or public interests within its respective domain.

The enactment of the Consumer Protection Law (CPL) by Royal Decree 66/2014 constituted a defining milestone in this evolution. Article 13 of the CPL authorised the chairperson of the PACP to “take the necessary measures and actions to guarantee consumer rights [...] and to stop any violation or breach against consumer rights or general health and safety rules”. This legislative innovation introduced a public law dimension to collective redress by transferring enforcement capacity from private individuals to the regulatory authority acting ex officio in the public interest.

The policy rationale underpinning this reform was twofold – namely, the aim was to:

• mitigate the procedural and financial burdens borne by individual consumers lacking resources to litigate independently; and
• promote market consistency and legal certainty by consolidating enforcement within a centralised administrative framework, thereby avoiding divergent judicial outcomes in fragmented private suits.

Accordingly, Oman’s collective redress architecture evolved from private aggregation toward state-led regulatory enforcement, reflecting a controlled expansion of collective remedy within a public governance paradigm.

Contemporary Framework and Policy Orientation

Modern Omani jurisprudence operates under a dual paradigm – procedural aggregation under the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law and administrative collective enforcement under sectoral legislation. The judiciary maintains the principle that standing must be personal and direct, yet recognises that joint proceedings may be appropriate where multiple claimants share an identical legal foundation.

From a policy standpoint, Oman has pursued institutionally mediated collective enforcement over liberalised class litigation. This deliberate restraint reflects the State’s broader governance philosophy, which prioritises judicial economy, procedural coherence and regulatory discipline over adversarial expansion. The central policy drivers have thus been:

• judicial efficiency – to prevent multiplicity of proceedings;
• consumer and investor protection – to ensure access to remedy through competent authorities; and
• regulatory coherence – to maintain consistency of enforcement across sectors.

Collective claims are therefore treated not as instruments of private mass litigation but as extensions of the public interest, administered within the boundaries of procedural regularity and institutional oversight.

To date, there has been no legislative initiative to enact a formal class action statute. Nonetheless, emerging policy discourse – particularly within the fields of consumer protection, environmental regulation, and financial governance – suggests a gradual shift towards enhanced collective accountability through administrative mechanisms. Any prospective reform is likely to favour incremental integration of collective remedies within existing civil procedure rather than wholesale transplantation of foreign class action models.

This measured approach reflects Oman’s commitment to legal stability, procedural integrity, and civil law orthodoxy, thereby ensuring that collective redress continues to evolve within the parameters of Oman’s established judicial and administrative traditions.

The collective redress framework of Oman is not modelled on any foreign class action system, whether that of the USA or other jurisdictions. Instead, it has evolved indigenously within a civil law tradition influenced by Egyptian procedural doctrine and, to a limited extent, the French model of judicial organisation – both of which served as technical references during Oman’s codification of the CCPL.

The Omani system reflects a civilian ethos – ie, rights of action are individual, litigation is strictly personal, and procedural representation is permitted only through explicit legal or contractual authority. Consequently, Oman’s approach diverges fundamentally from the collective litigation culture characteristic of the US system.

Oman has completed several treaties with the EU. These range from the co-operation agreement entered into in 1988 between the European Economic Community (EEC) and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) ‒ of which Oman is a member state ‒ to the EU‒Oman Air Transport Agreement, which was initialled by the EU and Oman’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2021.

It is important to recognise that Oman forms part of the GCC, which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE as its other current members. Although the GCC entered into the co-operation agreement shortly after it was formed in 1988, there have been no indications yet to implement Directive (EU) 2020/1828 (the “EU Collective Redress Directive”).

Perhaps this remains the case because of the difficulty in implementing the EU Collective Redress Directive. In any case, in the event that implementation occurs, it is more likely to be made under a joint collaborative decision by the GCC. At the time of writing (autumn 2025), no GCC member state has indicated any intent to implement the EU Collective Redress Directive.

With Oman itself being in the midst of an era of remarkable growth and reinvention, legal practitioners have witnessed an influx of updates to Oman’s legal framework during the course of the past decade ‒ formalising more modern, international standards of practice. As mentioned in 1.1 History and Policy Drivers of the Legislative Regime, although the current system may support a limited scope of collective redress and class action guidelines, Oman is expecting legislative developments that will broaden this scope in the coming years.

In recognition of where Oman stands today, the mechanisms for collective redress are set out across a selection of its regulations, covering key principles within the law. The regulations include:

• the CPL promulgated by Royal Decree 66/2014 and its Executive Regulations;

• the Labour Law promulgated by Royal Decree 53/2023 (the “Labour Law”) and its Executive Regulations; and

• the CCPL promulgated by Royal Decree 29/2002.

Civil and Commercial Procedures

The foundational text within Omani legal framework governing collective redress and class action procedures and practice is the CCPL. Simply put, the CCPL is the cornerstone of all collective action and acts as the procedural baseline when interpreting the provisions outlined under the other specified areas of law governing the same.

The CCPL establishes the authority of the courts and their jurisdiction to rule on associated claims. The principles of this legislation legitimise collective claims, covering all court procedural considerations, including potential accommodation for complex or multiparty claims. The CCPL governs collective redress in the following three noted ways:

• joining claims ‒ the combination of multiple associated claims;
• intervention ‒ where interested parties may request to be joined in judgment in relation to a related claim; and
• ancillary claims ‒ allowing parties to expand the scope of the claim to cover matters supplementary and indivisibly connected to the original claim.

Accordingly, the CCPL provides claimants with an avenue through which to formalise their collective complaints within the standard litigation procedure. Omani law itself does recognise other areas and methods of dispute resolution, particularly in relation to collective disputes. Although the CCPL does not contain detailed governance on the practice and standards of such, practitioners are able to interpret these provisions in a supplementary manner.

Employment and Labour

One of the most notable and impactful shifts in the Omani legislative framework came with the promulgation of the Labour Law, whereby collective labour disputes procedures were formally integrated into the legal framework. Collective redress is governed by committees established by the Ministry of Labour (MoL) ‒ most notably, the Committee for the Settlement of Collective Labour Disputes (the “Disputes Committee”) and the Committee for Arbitration of Collective Labour Disputes (the “Collective Arbitration Committee”).

Establishing employee interests

As a starting point, employees are able to protect collective interests in their relationship with their employer through contractual safeguards in the form of a “collective labour agreement”, which assists in governing the conditions, circumstances and terms of work. The collective labour agreement may be negotiated at any stage and provides for a three-month period of “collective bargaining” prior to the end of its term. Disputes arising from the collective labour agreement are handled directly by the Disputes Committee as and when needed.

In the absence of such an agreement, the Labour Law establishes its protection of employees’ rights by allowing for the joint submission of a request to the Disputes Committee to settle disputes.

Settlement procedures under the Labour Law

The Labour Law provides formal procedures for employees to follow in order to seek redress in the event of collective disputes. Such procedures were not formally included in previous versions of the labour and employment legislation.

As a first course of action, the law encourages the pursuit of a settlement and amicable resolution between employees and the employer themselves. Employees can raise collective complaints and submit a written request for the employer to settle their dispute. The Labour Law provides various safeguards for employeesagainst amicable settlement being unreasonably prolonged or averted. Accordingly, employers must ensure their response ‒ in writing ‒ within a maximum of seven calendar days. In the event that the employer fails to adhere to the conditions of the response period or that the dispute cannot be settled independently for any reason, the Disputes Committee will step in, guiding the parties to an amicable settlement where required.

Management of collective labour disputes

Another major development in the Omani legal framework came into effect with Royal Decree 26/2018 establishing the Oman Commercial Arbitration Centre. Accordingly, Oman has placed notable emphasis on promoting mechanisms for ADR in subsequent amendments to its legislation, including in areas covering collective disputes.

Where amicable settlement is not attainable between the parties, employees are provided with the option to pursue arbitral proceedings through the Disputes Committee. Similar to the procedures available under settlement, stringent timeframes are put in place to ensure claims are not unreasonably delayed. Where a dispute is submitted to the Disputes Committee, a hearing must be specified for the consideration of the dispute within a maximum of 15 days. Following this, the Disputes Committee is provided a consideration period of 30 days ‒ following which, the parties must be notified of the result of the award within three days from its issuance. Disputes may be contested before the Supreme Court in the event that the award is not satisfactorily resolved.

Consumer Protection

The consumer protection framework provides its own set of avenues for consumers to seek recourse through the CPL. Disputes arising between a supplier and consumer may be acted upon by the PACP. The PACP has the power to enforce the mechanisms of the CPL in a collective fashion where necessary.

Facilitating investigation

As a primary example, the PCAP may act on behalf of consumers in a dispute by obtaining the assistance of experts or specialists to provide technical expertise. The PCAP may also request the testing of a disputed product in a government or accredited laboratory in instances where the public interest requires such investigation.

As outlined in 2.1 Collective Redress and Class Action Legislation, the Omani legal framework governing collective redress and class action disputes currently focuses on a limited selection of key areas of law ‒ mainly labour and employment concerns and consumer protection matters.

Collective bodies may be recognised under the law ‒ for example, the Commercial Companies Law promulgated by Royal Decree 18/2019 recognises that corporate disputes concerning shareholder matters are inclined to be handled collectively by the relevant shareholders. However, the law itself does not provide a specified formal procedure for the undertaking of any class action recourse.

Nevertheless, in recognition of the expanding nature of the Omani legal system, practitioners expect to see a notable influx of new legislation that may potentially provide more formalised avenues for collective redress in the future.

As there is currently no unified framework governing class action and collective redress in Oman, a formal definition of collective redress/class does not exist under Omani law.

Nonetheless, as expressed under the Labour Law, collective action is considered a mechanism for handling collective labour disputes. This refers to action undertaken by a group of employees or an individual representing said group in matters concerning the conditions and circumstances of the work environment.

Furthermore, the CCPL addresses collective redress in the three forms outlined in 2.1 Collective Redress and Class Action Legislation (Civil and Commercial Procedures).

In Oman, no mechanisms have been specifically established regarding collective redress/class actions. Collective redress cases and class actions can be pursued in any of the available jurisdictions and courts in Oman. The law in Oman does not specify any additional details and requirements with regard to bringing collective redress/class action suits.

Jurisdiction and Courts

As noted, collective redress/class action cases generally follow the same requirements set out for individual cases under the Omani judiciary system. It is possible to pursue collective redress and class action cases in all areas of the law ‒ notably, including:

• civil law;
• commercial law;
• criminal law;
• labour law;
• administrative law; and
• maritime law.

In terms of each specific collective redress and class action case, the case may go through all stages of court proceeding in the event that the respective authority finds ground for such action. The case will start at the primary court; if the appeal court sees fit, the case would then proceed to the appeal court through submission of the appeal by either party. The case may also move to the Supreme Court should the Supreme Court see fit and one or both of the parties submit an appeal against the judgment of the appellate court.

Difference in Mechanism Between Class Action/Multiparty Cases and Individual Cases

As stated previously, the general and main mechanism for collective redress and class action cases remains the same as that for individual cases. However, there are several considerations that must be taken into account prior to the registration of the collective redress/class action. These differences occur in the labour, civil and commercial jurisdictions of the law. It is important to note that these are procedural differences and the practical aspects of these differences should be taken into consideration prior to the registration of any collective redress/class action. The difference in the mechanisms of for bringing collective redress/class actions compared to individual cases lies in the procedure for bringing such cases, as detailed in 3.2 Overview of Procedure.

As stated in 3.1 Mechanisms for Bringing Collective Redress/Class Actions, in general the mechanisms and requirements for bringing collective redress and class action are the same as the requirements and mechanisms put in place for individual cases. Each jurisdiction of law may differ in terms of the process of registering and bringing the case whether collective or individual. As per the CCPL, the following process must be followed for registration.

The case must be filed with the court that has jurisdiction, which will be the court of jurisdiction that is located where the defendant is domiciled or has their place of business. The claim is only formalised by the claimant through a statement that includes the parties’ details, the subject of the dispute, and any supporting evidence. The case must initially be submitted to the primary court.

Labour Procedure

For any labour case made prior to the registration of the case with the court, the parties must go through the Disputes Committee as per Article 9 of the Labour Law. The Labour Law provides specific details and instructions regarding the procedure for collective redress and class action cases at the labour disputes department, as follows.

• Article 118 sets out the requirements for a request to settle a collective labour dispute. The information that must be contained within the request includes but is not limited to the names and details of the parties, a brief of the matter, supporting documents, and the procedures followed for the settlement (if any).

• Article 119 imposes an obligation on the Disputes Committee to resolve the dispute within 15 days and document it. If no amicable settlement is reached, then the Disputes Committee must within seven days report to the competent entity with regard to the matters accepted and rejected and the reasons for such rejection.
• Article 120 provides that if no amicable settlement is reached, either party may submit a request to take arbitration procedures to the competent authority, which shall refer the dispute to the Collective Arbitration Committee.
• Article 121 provides for the establishment of the Collective Arbitration Committee and sets out the composition of its board.

• Article 122 provides that the Collective Arbitration Committee must set a hearing to consider the dispute within 15 days from submission of the arbitration request.

• Article 123 provides that the Collective Arbitration Committee must issue its verdict within a month from commencing the dispute.

• Article 124 sets out the regulations and principles that the Collective Arbitration Committee shall apply, including the rules of justice and equity in accordance with the prevailing economic and social situation. The award is considered final and can only be appealed before the High Court.

• Article 125 states that the Collective Arbitration Committee shall notify the parties to the dispute with a copy of its award within three days following the date on which the award was issued.

It is also important to note that the Labour Law also provides notice that the CCPL and the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes promulgated by Royal Decree 47/1997 will only apply to matters that are not governed by a special arbitration clause regarding collective redress and class action claims. Article 126 of the Labour Law states: “The provisions of the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes and the provisions of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law shall apply [with] regard to matters not governed by a special text regarding arbitration in collective labour disputes.”

As such, the above-mentioned process must be followed for all collective redress and class action cases under the jurisdiction of labour law.

CCPL Procedures

Although there are no specific regulations regarding collective redress claims/class action claims, the CCPL has specific measures and procedures in place for multiparty claims. Multiparty claims include any claim in which more than one party is involved on either the defendant side or the claimant side. In multiparty claims, the domicile of the defendants maybe consolidated into one domicile based on the court’s discretion, as per article 44 of the CCPL: “The competence lies with the court in whose jurisdiction the domicile of the defendant is located, unless the law provides otherwise. If the defendant does not have a domicile in the Sultanate [of Oman], the competence lies with the court in whose jurisdiction [the defendant’s] place of residence is located. If there are multiple defendants, the competence lies with the court in whose jurisdiction the domicile of one of them is located.” Practical considerations that must be observed during the procedure include ensuring all relevant documentation is submitted at the same time as the submission of the claim, as well as ensuring their attendance aligns with scheduled proceedings (taking into account the consequences of non-attendance).

As discussed in 3.1 Mechanisms for Bringing Collective Redress/Class Actions, under the current legislative system, the mechanisms for bringing collective redress and class actions are the same as the mechanisms for individual cases. As such, the right of standing to bring a collective redress/class action is the same as in an individual case.

The CCPL details who has the right of standing to file a claim with regard to the civil and commercial matters it governs. In general, to have standing to file a claim, parties must be either:

• natural persons who have legal capacity; or
• legal entities with a recognized legal personality.

In all cases, the party must establish its relation to the case and the defendant, only those directly affected or having a legal interest in the dispute can submit claims.

As regards arbitration cases, the right of standing to initiate arbitration lies with the parties who are either directly bound by the arbitration agreement or the authorised signatories to the arbitration agreement.

Advocate Assignment Considerations

Natural persons and legal entities retain the right to represent themselves or to assign a legal advocate to represent them. The legal advocate shall ensure they have a valid power of attorney from the natural person or from the authorised individual of the legal entity. However, the law has stipulated certain cases in which a legal advocate must be assigned. As per Article 18 of the Advocacy and Legal Consultancy Law promulgated by Royal Decree 41/2024: “Private legal persons shall not file a lawsuit worth more than OMR10,000 except through an advocate. Individuals shall also not file a civil, commercial or tax lawsuit, the value of which exceeds OMR30,000, except through an advocate.”

As such, collective redress claims/class actions raised by legal entities claiming an amount exceeding OMR10,000 must be made through a legal advocate. As for individuals raising a claim of collective redress/class action, the benchmark is raised to cases in which the value of the claim exceeds OMR30,000. However, this is restricted to civil, commercial and tax claims.

As there is no specific legislation directly concerning collective redress and class actions, there are no specific restrictions as to who belongs to a relevant class, no limitations on the size of the class, and no regulations when it comes to the mechanism for joining the action.

In terms of determining of who belongs to a relevant class for the purposes of collective redress/class action litigation in Oman, parties must be directly affected by or should have a legal interest in the class action. In all cases, the court of jurisdiction has a right and responsibility to consider relevancy.

As stated previously, there are no current regulations determining the size of classes. At the time of writing (autumn 2025), there have not been any restrictions put in place limiting the number within a class in a collective redress/class action claim.

As regards the mechanism for joining a collective redress/class action litigation (ie, opting in or opting out), even though there are no specific details concerning collective redress and class actions, the CCPL governs certain matters related to the claimant adding a defendant during the court proceedings. Article 117 of the CPPL states: “Subject to the provisions of Article 67, a litigant may include into the lawsuit any person who can be validly sued at filing, by the ordinary procedures for filing the lawsuit before the day of the hearing. The court may, even of its own initiative, order the inclusion of any person it considers to include in the interest of justice or to reveal the truth. The court shall set a date for the appearance of those it orders to be included and those included by the litigants.”

As explained in 3.4 Class Members, Size and Mechanism – Opting In or Out, the CCPL governs all procedural matters related to the joinder of additional parties to ongoing cases in Oman. This regulatory framework applies to all civil and commercial cases and is not specific to collective redress and class action cases.

Article 121 of the CCPL states: “The court shall rule on every dispute related to the admissibility of intervention. If the court considers that the request for inclusion or intervention is not based on a serious interest or is only intended to delay ruling on the lawsuit, it shall decide to reject the request. In all cases, intervention does not result in adjourning the judgment in the original lawsuit if it is valid for judgment. The court shall rule on the substance of requests for intervention with the original lawsuit whenever possible[;] otherwise, it shall retain the request for intervention to rule on it after its investigation.” As such, the joining claimant must submit a request to join the class action ‒ submitting the request and all required documents as per the procedure required to file the claim ‒ and the court will have the discretion to approve or deny the request of the joining claimant.

In the absence of specific regulations governing collective redress and class actions in Oman, the courts exercise their case management powers ‒ in respect of all types of cases (including collective redress/class actions) – under the framework of general laws and regulations, based on the jurisdiction of each case. Such management powers cover urgency, procedural corrections, and service and notifications.

Under the CCPL, the court has the authority to designate cases as urgent ‒ allowing for expedited timelines both in the issuance of judgments and the execution of decisions ‒ where the nature of the dispute requires swift resolution. The court also retains the right to amend errors and correct procedural inaccuracies in filings or proceedings. The court may also assume responsibility for notifying the defendants of the claim; however, this matter is taken on a case-by-case basis.

In general, the timeline and timetable for completing collective redress and class actions have not been determined in Oman. Previous experience suggests that collective redress and class actions can differ drastically in terms of the length of proceedings; as such, they are taken on a case-by-case basis.

A number of timetabling considerations should be taken into account, as follows.

• Under Article 10 of the Law on the Simplification of Litigation Procedures promulgated by Royal Decree 125/2020 (the “SLP Law”), in disputes concerning foreign capital investment, leases, employment, construction contracts, and debt documents, the primary circuit court must issue its judgment within a maximum period of 30 days from the date the case is formally referred to it.

• It also important to note the deadline within which to appeal the primary and appellate court judgments. As regards appealing primary court judgments, the party must submit their appeal within 15‒30 days, depending on the jurisdiction of the case. Appeals against appellate court judgements, where applicable, must be made within 40 days of the date of judgment.

• Under Royal Decree 35/2025 Establishing the Court of Investment and Commerce and Issuing Its Law (the “Court of Investment Law”), the newly formed court provides clear and specific timelines for registration, proceedings, and judgments. As such, these timelines must be taken into consideration.

• Article 19 of the Court of Investment Law provides details on the process for registering a new claim through the electronic system. After registration, the lawsuit perpetration office shall verify the payment, prepare procedures for the lawsuit, and ensure that all the documents necessary are provided within three working days from the date of registration. In the event of any missing documents or payment failure, the lawsuit perpetration office must notify the claimant to resolve this within ten working days and failure to do so will render the claim void, as per Article 22 of the Court of Investment Law.

• Upon completing the required steps in Articles 19 and 22 of the Court of Investment Law, the lawsuit perpetration office must electronically serve the defendant within three working days, as per Article 23 of the Court of Investment Law.

• Following the foregoing, the defendant will have 15 days to submit their response to the claim, and the lawsuit perpetration office must notify the claimant of such response within three working days (as per Article 24 of the Court of Investment Law).

• Article 25 of the Court of Investment Law provides the claimant and defendant with the options and timeline for further proceedings. The claimant may reply within 15 days and the defendant may respond again within ten days after that.

• Article 26 of the Court of Investment Law states that, following the above-mentioned submissions, it is generally prohibited for any party to submit further claims and responses unless the court permits such submissions.

• Article 28 of the Court of Investment Law provides information concerning the timeline after the end of the proceedings. The relevant court of jurisdiction in the case must decide to either issue a provisional judgment within ten days or to set a new hearing if needed within a period not exceeding 15 days from the date of referral. In all cases, the court of jurisdiction must issue their judgment within a period not exceeding 90 days from the date of referral.

• In the event that the court finds it necessary to appoint an expert, the expert must file their report within 60 days following their appointment and both parties will have 15 days to respond to the expert’s report, as per Article 31 of the Court of Investment Law. Article 16 of the Court of Investment Law provides details regarding the period for appeal of primary court judgments  the period for appeal of primary court judgements is set at 15 days for general cases and for cases that are deemed urgent by the court at 7 days.
• Article 17 of the Court of Investment Law sets the period of appeal for the appeal court in the Court of Investment and Commerce. The time limit is set at 30 days.

As stated in 3.2 Overview of Procedure, the procedural considerations under the Labour Law regarding collective redress and class actions follow a specified timeline. As such, the parties should bear in mind the following considerations regarding the timeline of such cases.

• The Disputes Committee must resolve the dispute amicably within 15 days of receiving the request to settle. In the event that an amicable settlement is not reached, the Disputes Committee must submit a report to the competent authority within seven days from the failure to reach an amicable settlement.
• Once the matter has been referred to the Collective Arbitration Committee, the chairperson of the Collective Arbitration Committee will schedule a hearing to consider the dispute, which must take place within 15 days of receiving the request for arbitration.
• The Collective Arbitration Committee must rule on the dispute within one month from the date of the hearing in which the dispute was considered.
• The Collective Arbitration Committee must notify the parties to the dispute and provide a copy of its award via registered mail within three days following the date on which the award was issued..

Following on from the timeline mentioned in 3.7 Length and Timetable for Proceedings, there are some considerations related to procedural matters and court decisions that may affect the length of proceedings.

• As stated in 3.7 Length and Timetable for Proceedings, accelerated claims may be made at the discretion of the court and based on the jurisdiction. Article 28 of the SLP Law states: “The time limit of the appeal shall be 15 days from the date of pronouncement of the judgment if it was in propria persona, deemed to be in propria persona, or issued with regard to an objection; from the date of it becoming non-objectionable if it was made in absentia with regard to the convict, the claimant of the civil right, and the person responsible for it; and 30 days for the public prosecution. The president of the court shall specify a hearing to consider the appeal within a period not exceeding ten days from the date of the declaration of the appeal, and the date of the hearing specified to consider it shall be recorded in this declaration. This shall be deemed an announcement of it, even if the declaration is from a prosecutor. The public prosecutor shall order the other litigants to attend the specified hearing. The court of appeal shall issue its judgment on the appeal within the dates stipulated in Article 23 of this law.” As such, the appeal duration is reduced based on the jurisdiction and based on the court’s discretion.
• As stated in Article 10 of the SLP Law, the set timelines imposed by the court may extend the duration as per its discretion. The court may extend the 30-day period once for another 30 days only if the lawsuit is not valid for adjudication. For disputes arising from construction contracts and for commercial disputes involving foreign capital investment, the aforementioned deadline can be further extended, provided that the extension period does not exceed four months.
• As for issuing the judgment, Article 28 of the Court of Investment Law allows the court of jurisdiction to extend the judgment period by another 45 days for any serious reasons, as determined by the court.
• For cases that have a court-assigned expert, the expert may delay the submission of their report by 15 days for serious reasons. The same benefit is provided to both parties in submitting their objections towards the report submitted, as per Article 31 of the Court of Investment Law.

As such, even though the above-mentioned matters do not relate directly to collective redress and class actions, they may be implemented in such cases depending on the circumstances, and shall be taken into consideration when estimating the entire length of proceedings.

The allocation of costs in Oman is governed by the CCPL. The general principle is that costs follow the event ‒ that is, the unsuccessful party bears the judicial fees, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees of the prevailing party, unless the court determines otherwise in equity.

Under Article 65 of the CCPL, the claimant must ‒ upon filing the statement of claim – “pay the full prescribed court fee and attach the necessary copies of the supporting document”. Fees are assessed under Article 73 of the CCPL, which imposes a 2% charge on the value of the claim (subject to a minimum of OMR30 and a maximum of OMR3,000 for commercial suits). Accordingly, where multiple claimants file a collective or joined action under Articles 60–61 of the CCPL, the aggregate value of the combined claims forms the basis for fee assessment.

Judicial costs encompass:

• court filing and registration fees (articles 64–73 of the ccpl);
• service of process and notification charges; and
• expert and translation costs, if appointed by the court.

The court retains discretionary power to apportion costs where success is divided among the parties or where equitable considerations so require. Costs are thus judicially controlled, not party-driven, and are intended to reflect compensation for procedural expense rather than punitive sanction.

Funding and Cost-Sharing Mechanisms

Omani law does not provide for collective funding structures, litigation finance, or contingency-fee arrangements akin to those found in common law jurisdictions. Lawyers in Oman are compensated through fixed or hourly retainer agreements negotiated directly with their clients, and success-fee or “no-win-no-fee” models are generally prohibited under the Advocacy Law and professional-conduct regulations administered by the Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs.

In multiparty litigations conducted under Articles 60–61 of the CCPL, claimants ordinarily share court fees and expenses in proportion to their respective interests, unless they agree otherwise in writing. Where one attorney represents multiple parties by virtue of separate powers of attorney under Article 75 of the CCPL, each client remains individually liable for his or her share of professional fees, and the attorney must maintain separate accounting for each representation to avoid conflicts of interest.

Third-party funding, litigation syndication, and assignment of claims for speculative purposes have no legal recognition under Omani law and would likely be deemed contrary to public policy (ordre public) as interpreted by the Omani courts.

Judicial Aid and Fee Exemptions

The CCPL empowers the Minister of Justice and Legal Affairs, in co-ordination with the Ministry of Finance, to issue regulations governing judicial aid for indigent litigants. Although this framework is primarily intended for individuals, it may in practice extend to groups or associations acting collectively if they satisfy the means-testing criteria prescribed by regulation. Judicial aid typically covers court fees and related procedural expenses but does not extend to private legal fees.

In administrative or regulatory collective actions, particularly those initiated by the PACP under Article 13 of the CPL, costs are borne by the State ‒ given that such proceedings are executed ex officio in the public interest. This reflects Oman’s policy preference for publicly funded enforcement over private cost-sharing litigation.

Comparative Policy and Practical Consequences

The absence of contingency fees, cost-shifting exceptions, or litigation funding has resulted in a restrained cost environment. Although this ensures procedural integrity and discourages speculative suits, it also limits large-scale private collective actions by dispersing financial responsibility among individual claimants. Consequently, collective redress in Oman remains confined to:

• joint civil proceedings, whereby costs are divided contractually; and
• public enforcement actions, whereby the State bears expenses on behalf of affected consumers.

This system embodies the Omani policy of procedural prudence and judicial economy, maintaining access to justice while curbing the proliferation of privately financed mass litigation.

In summary, the general rule in Oman is that the losing party bears the costs of the proceedings, including court fees and ancillary expenses. Funding is private, upfront and individualised, with no statutory mechanism for external financing or contingency-based representation. In cases of collective enforcement by regulatory authorities, costs are absorbed by the State, reflecting Oman’s broader policy of institutional guardianship of public rights rather than privatised collective funding.

Oman, as a civil law jurisdiction, does not recognise pre-trial discovery or disclosure in the common law sense. The CCPL vests control of the evidentiary process exclusively in the court, which determines what evidence is relevant, admissible, and necessary for adjudication.

The procedural structure is inquisitorial rather than adversarial, meaning that:

• the parties are under no obligation to disclose documents adverse to their case;
• there is no system of general disclosure, interrogatories, or pre-trial depositions; and
• evidence is produced upon the court’s direction, either at the initiative of the judge or upon specific, justified request of a party.

The relevant provisions of the Law of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Transactions promulgated by Royal Decree 68/2008 (the “Law of Evidence”) and the CCPL collectively require each party to “prove [their] claim and rebut the claim of [their] opponent” (Article 1 of the Law of Evidence). However, this burden does not entail mutual document production, but rather submission of specific documentary proof supporting one’s position.

Court-Directed Production of Documents

Although there is no broad pre-trial discovery, targeted disclosure may be ordered under judicial supervision.

Pursuant to the CCPL, the court may – on its own motion or at a party’s request – compel the production of a document where that document is considered decisive for determining the dispute. The requesting party must identify the document with sufficient precision and demonstrate that it is held by the opposing party or a third party. The court will then issue an order of exhibition, limited strictly to that document or class of documents.

Failure to comply with a lawful order for production may lead the court to draw adverse inferences. However, no contempt sanctions equivalent to those in common law jurisdictions exist.

In collective or multiparty actions under Articles 60–61 of the CCPL, evidentiary requests are handled identically. Each claimant must prove their interest and may rely on shared exhibits only to the extent that they substantiate the common legal cause.

Trial-Stage Evidence and Judicial Control

Evidence is adduced exclusively during the trial phase, subsequent to the registration of the statement of claim and the service of process. At this stage, the court exercises plenary discretion over the evidentiary process and may, within the scope of its judicial authority:

• examine and assess the documentary record submitted by the parties;
• hear and evaluate witness testimony;
• appoint one or more experts to conduct technical or financial examinations; and
• direct the admission, exclusion, or supplementation of evidence at any stage prior to the issuance of final judgment.

All evidentiary material must be produced in open session or by means of filings formally authorised by the presiding judge. No party may introduce additional or late documents except with the court’s express leave, thereby ensuring procedural regularity, judicial control, and equality of arms between the litigants.

Omani procedure maintains a highly controlled evidentiary regime. There is no pre-trial discovery and disclosure occurs only under judicial supervision when the court deems a document material to the dispute. Privilege is rooted in statutory confidentiality, protecting lawyer–client communications, professional secrets, and private documents from compelled production. This framework reflects Oman’s civil law commitment to procedural integrity, judicial control, and respect for confidentiality, rather than adversarial disclosure or expansive discovery mechanisms.

Although Oman does not recognise class actions as a distinct procedural instrument, litigants proceeding collectively may obtain the full range of civil remedies available under Omani law. The nature and extent of relief are governed not by the procedural form of joinder but by the substantive cause of action and the jurisdictional competence of the court seised of the dispute. Collective proceedings are thus adjudicated as a single composite action, culminating in a unified judgment binding upon all parties to record, with enforcement rights apportioned according to each claimant’s proven interest.

Judicial Remedies in Civil and Commercial Litigation

Compensatory damages

The primary remedial mechanism under Omani law is pecuniary compensation for damage sustained, whether arising ex contractu or ex delicto. The quantum of compensation is assessed by the court in light of the causative link between the wrongful act and the loss. In collective claims, such compensation may be rendered jointly or severally, contingent upon the defendants’ contribution to the injury.

Restitutionary remedies

Where enrichment has occurred sine causa, the court may order restitution in kind or equivalent value. This remedy is particularly apposite in collective claims involving overpayment, misappropriation, or unlawful acquisition of consumer funds – ensuring restoration of the status quo ante.

Declaratory and injunctive relief

The Omani courts are vested with inherent jurisdiction to issue declaratory pronouncements concerning the existence, scope, or extinction of rights, as well as to grant injunctive relief to restrain ongoing violations. In collective proceedings, such injunctive orders may extend to the protection of a homogenous group interest.

Interest, costs, and ancillary relief

The prevailing party may recover judicial costs and lawful interest. Interest is granted solely within the confines of Omani public policy and Sharia principles, excluding punitive or usurious rates. Costs follow the event and are imposed at the court’s discretion to ensure equitable distribution of litigation expenses.

Administrative and Regulatory Enforcement

Beyond the judicial forum, collective redress may be effectuated through statutory administrative mechanisms – most notably, under the CPL.

Under Articles 34–37 of the CPL, PACP officials are vested with judicial enforcement powers, including the authority to inspect, seize, and temporarily close commercial establishments, and to refer violations to the public prosecution. Remedies obtainable through this administrative channel include:

• orders for cessation or rectification of unlawful practices;
• product recall or withdrawal from circulation; and
• imposition of administrative fines or licence suspension.

These remedies operate erga omnes, safeguarding public and consumer interests rather than compensating individual losses. They are executed under the aegis of the State.

Limitations

Omani law expressly excludes punitive and exemplary damages, consistent with the civil law maxim that the object of liability is reparation, not punishment. Liability arises only to the extent of actual harm occasioned by fault, excluding speculative or punitive elements. Likewise, collective settlements or court-approved global settlements typical of common law class actions are unknown to Omani procedural law, which mandates direct judicial determination of rights and obligations between named litigants.

Remedies obtainable through collective or joined proceedings in Oman are substantive, compensatory, and restorative in nature, encompassing monetary reparation, restitutionary recovery, declaratory confirmation, and injunctive protection. The overarching remedial philosophy of Omani law remains restitutio in integrum, restoring the injured party – whether individually or collectively – to the position antecedent to the harm while eschewing punitive sanctions or speculative awards. This framework underscores Oman’s civil law discipline, procedural restraint, and commitment to proportionate and equitable redress.

Oman recognises conciliation, mediation and arbitration as formal means of dispute resolution consistent with its civil law system and the legislative policy of promoting amicable settlement. Although there is no dedicated “collective settlement” or “class action ADR” regime, the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes provides the principal statutory mechanism through which multiparty or collective claims may be resolved outside the ordinary courts.

Pursuant to Article 1 of the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, the law applies to “every arbitration between parties with a personality under public or private law, irrespective of the nature of the legal relationship”, where such arbitration is conducted in Oman or constitutes international commercial arbitration agreed to be governed by Omani law. Thus, multiparty contractual or commercial disputes such as those involving groups of consumers, investors or contractors may validly be referred to arbitration through a common submission or unified arbitration clause.

Multiparty Arbitration and Procedural Autonomy

The Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes expressly accommodates situations involving multiple parties. Under Article 4(3) of the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, the term “parties to the arbitration” includes “the parties of the arbitration even if they are multiple”, thereby acknowledging the procedural legitimacy of multi-claimant or multi-respondent arbitration.

Article 5 of the Law of of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes confers extensive procedural autonomy, permitting the parties to “determine the procedure to be followed for a specific matter or to authorise a third party, including arbitral organisations or centres, to make that determination”. This provision enables parties to adopt collective arbitral procedures or institutional rules (eg, those of the Oman Commercial Arbitration Centre, the ICC, or the LCIA) suitable for group disputes.

Furthermore, Article 25 of the Law of of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes reinforces this autonomy by allowing parties to agree on the arbitral procedures to be followed, including submission to the rules of any arbitral centre in Oman or abroad ‒ failing which, the arbitral tribunal may “choose the arbitral procedures it considers appropriate”.

Enforcement and Judicial Supervision

Enforceability of arbitral awards, including those embodying settlements, is governed by Articles 55–58 of the Law of of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes. Pursuant to Article 55 of the Law of of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, arbitral awards “have the power of res judicata, and shall be enforced taking into consideration the provisions stipulated in this law”.

Under Article 56 of the Law of of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, enforcement is obtained through an order of the president of the competent primary court, accompanied by:

• the original award or a signed copy thereof;
• the arbitration agreement;
• a certified Arabic translation (if applicable); and
• a report evidencing deposit of the award under.

These provisions ensure that arbitral settlements and collective awards, once authenticated, acquire executory authority equivalent to judicial decrees. This is a vital attribute in the absence of a statutory class action framework.

Informal and Traditional Settlement

In addition to statutory arbitration, customary conciliation (ṣulḥ) remains recognised under Omani law as a binding contractual settlement mechanism. Although not codified within the Law of of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, such informal agreements may be notarised and enforced as executory contracts under the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law. This traditional avenue remains prevalent in commercial, family and community disputes involving multiple claimants.

In summary, collective redress through non-judicial means in Oman is principally facilitated by the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Disputes, which allows:

• multiparty arbitration under articles 4(3) and 10;
• conciliatory settlement converted into enforceable arbitral awards under article 41; and
• judicial enforcement of such awards under Articles 55–58.

These provisions collectively provide a coherent procedural infrastructure for collective dispute resolution in the absence of formal class action legislation, ensuring that multiparty grievances may be addressed through binding, enforceable and confidential arbitral processes consistent with Omani public policy and legal tradition.

Judgments rendered in collective or multiparty proceedings under Omani law are final judicial determinations issued by the competent primary court sitting in its civil or commercial circuit, pursuant to the CCPL.

In accordance with Article 68 of the CCPL, each lawsuit is formally registered and assigned a case file upon submission of the statement of claim, and the court proceeds to issue a reasoning that conclusively resolves the dispute between the named parties. Such judgments are binding solely upon the parties on record ‒ namely, those who have been duly joined to the proceedings or represented by a valid power of attorney.

There is no doctrine of erga omnes effect in Omani civil procedure. Therefore, judgments in collective or joined actions bind only the identified claimants and defendants, and do not extend to non-participants or members of an undefined class. The binding force of a judgment arises upon its pronouncement and is maintained until set aside or reversed through lawful means of challenge.

Judgments of court of appeal may be challenged before the Supreme Court on limited grounds of error in law, procedural nullity, or jurisdictional defect. Once a judgment attains finality, it acquires the authority of res judicata, precluding re-litigation of the same claim or cause of action between the same parties.

Once an order is issued, the award is transmitted to the execution department of that court, which undertakes the procedural steps of execution under the CCPL. The execution department functions as the judicial arm responsible for compulsory implementation of enforceable titles, including arbitral awards confirmed by an enforcement order. Its duties encompass:

• seizure of assets belonging to the judgment debtor;
• registration of liens or charges over immovable property;
• garnishment of third-party debts; and
• supervision of payment or delivery as specified in the award.

The filing of a setting-aside lawsuit does not automatically suspend execution; the competent court may only stay enforcement upon a justified request and may require a financial guarantee. Finally, Article 58 of the CCPL precludes enforcement unless the time limit for seeking annulment has expired and mandates judicial verification that the award does not contradict a prior Omani judgment, does not offend public order, and has been duly notified to the losing party

Accordingly, once a court issues its enforcement order, the execution department becomes the operative body ensuring compliance ‒ thereby conferring upon arbitral awards the same coercive enforceability and procedural treatment as final court judgments.

Supreme Judicial Council Decision No 150/2025 established the “Qadhaa” electronic portal to streamline access to litigation services and support secure digital filings. Ministerial Decision No 45/2025 expanded the Consumer Protection Authority’s judicial enforcement powers, strengthening its ability to combat commercial fraud and enforce consumer rights. Additionally, Ministerial Decision No 617/2024 requires employers with 50 or more workers to implement formal grievance systems, reinforcing early-stage resolution of employment disputes.

All of the foregoing provides an extra step towards a legislative system that embraces collective redress and class action cases, potentially confining them within in a single piece of law. The current practice allows for redress and class action, albeit through scattered bits and pieces of law.

Oman’s new Labour Law introduces a structured dispute resolution process for individual labour claims. Parties must first seek a settlement through the MoL before approaching the courts. Settlements reached at this stage are now enforceable like court judgments, eliminating the need for re-litigation if breached. A judge is seconded to the MoL to ratify these settlements and ensure their legal validity. For collective disputes, the law details procedures for bargaining, MoL-led settlement committees, and arbitration. It also regulates strikes and lockouts, establishing clear conditions, timelines, and restrictions.

The transition to electronic litigation, specialised courts, and enforceable pre-litigation settlements demonstrates a move towards a more efficient and accessible system. Nevertheless, these reforms still function within an individual litigation framework. Although they establish a solid foundation with clearer procedures, quicker resolutions, and enhanced protections for consumers and workers, they do not yet allow for group-based claims.