Civil Law And UAE Freezing Order Litigation Strategy

1. Meaning

A freezing order is an interim protective measure designed to prevent a defendant from dissipating, transferring, concealing or otherwise dealing with assets in a way that could frustrate enforcement of a future judgment.

In UAE litigation, however, it is essential to distinguish between:

1. Onshore UAE precautionary attachment / conservatory measures under UAE procedural law;
2. DIFC freezing injunctions, which operate through the DIFC Courts' interim-remedies jurisdiction and are strongly influenced by common-law freezing-order principles; and
3. ADGM worldwide freezing injunctions, which similarly employ common-law principles.

Therefore:

“UAE freezing order” is not one uniform procedural remedy across every UAE jurisdiction.

The correct litigation strategy begins with jurisdiction and the legal source of the interim remedy.

2. Core Purpose

The freezing order is generally not intended to give the claimant security merely because the claimant fears losing the case.

Its central function is to prevent a future judgment from becoming practically useless because assets have been dissipated.

Basic formula

CLAIM → GOOD ARGUABLE CASE → ASSETS → REAL RISK OF DISSIPATION → JUST AND CONVENIENT RELIEF → FREEZING ORDER → DISCLOSURE → ENFORCEMENT

The DIFC Courts have expressly described a freezing order as a drastic remedy that restricts the defendant's ability to deal with assets and should therefore not be granted lightly.

3. First Strategic Question: Which UAE Jurisdiction?

Before applying for relief, identify the forum.

A. Onshore UAE Courts

The principal mechanism is generally framed through precautionary attachment and other interim/conservatory measures, rather than simply importing the English Mareva model.

B. DIFC Courts

The DIFC Rules contain a specific freezing-order mechanism under Part 25. The standard form can cover assets within the DIFC and, in appropriate circumstances, worldwide assets.

C. ADGM Courts

ADGM also has a developed freezing-injunction jurisdiction. Its Practice Direction 7 provides forms for both domestic and worldwide freezing injunctions.

Strategic trigger

Onshore UAE ≠ DIFC ≠ ADGM.

4. What Must the Applicant Usually Establish?

In DIFC/ADGM-style freezing-order litigation, the applicant generally needs to address four central questions:

1. Good arguable case

There must be a substantial, properly supported underlying claim.

2. Assets

There must be assets against which a future judgment could potentially be enforced.

3. Risk of dissipation

The applicant must demonstrate a real basis for believing that assets may be dissipated so as to frustrate enforcement.

4. Justice and convenience

The court must consider whether granting the order is appropriate in all circumstances.

The DIFC Courts recently reaffirmed this framework in Orabelle v Orzenia [2026] DIFC ARB 007, stating that an applicant must establish a good arguable case, assets capable of enforcement, a real risk of dissipation and that the order is just and convenient.

5. Case Law 1 — Larmag Holding

Larmag Holding BV v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC [2019] DIFC CFI 030

This is one of the important DIFC authorities concerning freezing injunction principles.

Importance

The case is frequently relied upon for:

• the good arguable case requirement;
• balance-of-convenience considerations;
• the court's discretion;
• proportionality;
• the relationship between freezing relief and the underlying claim.

The later Techteryx decision expressly referred to Larmag in explaining the merits threshold and the principle that the court should consider which course is likely to cause the least irremediable prejudice.

Litigation lesson

A freezing application should not merely say:

“The defendant owes me money.”

It should explain:

Why the underlying claim is genuinely arguable and why ordinary litigation may not adequately protect the eventual judgment.

6. Risk of Dissipation

This is normally the heart of the application.

A claimant should distinguish between:

Mere possibility

“The defendant could transfer assets.”

and:

Real evidential risk

“There are specific facts indicating that the defendant is likely to move, conceal or dissipate assets so as to defeat enforcement.”

Potential evidence can include:

• unexplained transfers;
• movement of assets between related companies;
• disposal of valuable property;
• unusual withdrawals;
• offshore restructuring;
• creation of new entities;
• transfer to associates;
• previous asset dissipation;
• misleading asset disclosures;
• concealment;
• attempts to place assets beyond enforcement.

7. Case Law 2 — Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Manghat

Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Prasanth Manghat [2022] ADGMCFI 0007

This is a major ADGM freezing-injunction authority.

The claimant alleged very substantial fraud-related losses and sought a worldwide freezing order. The ADGM Court granted a worldwide freezing injunction after an inter partes hearing.

The case considered:

• good arguable case;
• risk of dissipation;
• delay;
• whether the order was just and convenient;
• oppression;
• worldwide relief.

Litigation lesson

A freezing order application must be supported by evidence of the actual circumstances, not merely the seriousness of the underlying allegations.

8. Delay Can Damage the Application

A claimant who waits too long after discovering the alleged dissipation risk may face a difficult question:

If the claimant genuinely believed assets were about to disappear, why did it wait?

Delay can therefore undermine:

• urgency;
• credibility;
• alleged risk of dissipation;
• proportionality;
• necessity of immediate relief.

This does not mean every delay defeats an application. The court examines the explanation and surrounding circumstances.

9. Case Law 3 — Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities

Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others [2025] DIFC DEC 001

This is one of the most important recent UAE digital-asset freezing-order authorities.

The dispute concerned an alleged fraud involving reserves connected with a stablecoin. The DIFC Digital Economy Court granted proprietary and worldwide freezing relief concerning approximately USD 456 million and later continued the injunctions.

Significance

The case demonstrates that freezing orders can operate in disputes involving:

• cryptocurrency;
• stablecoins;
• bank accounts;
• traceable proceeds;
• digital assets;
• cross-border transactions.

The court distinguished between a proprietary injunction and a freezing order, although the principles overlap.

Strategic lesson

If the claimant can establish a proprietary claim over identifiable property or traceable proceeds, it should consider whether a proprietary injunction provides stronger protection than relying solely on a general freezing order.

10. Freezing Order vs Proprietary Injunction

These remedies should not be confused.

Freezing order

Generally prevents the defendant from dealing with assets up to a specified value.

Proprietary injunction

Protects property claimed by the claimant as belonging beneficially to the claimant.

Example

If AED 10 million belonging to the claimant has allegedly been transferred to the defendant:

General freezing order

→ prevents dissipation up to the relevant value.

Proprietary injunction

→ may specifically restrain dealing with the identified property or traceable proceeds.

Memory trigger

Freezing order = preserve enforcement.
Proprietary injunction = protect claimed property.

11. The “Not a Security Device” Principle

A claimant must not present a freezing order simply as a mechanism for obtaining security before judgment.

The DIFC Courts have emphasised that the purpose of a freezing order is not to provide a claimant with security merely because it hopes to win and fears non-payment.

Therefore:

Debt + fear of non-payment ≠ automatic freezing order

The applicant needs to establish the legal requirements for interim relief.

12. Case Law 4 — Trafigura v Gupta

Trafigura Pte Ltd & Trafigura India Pvt Ltd v Prateek Gupta & Ginni Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001

This case is particularly important because it involved a UAE-wide freezing order sought in support of English proceedings.

The DIFC Court of Appeal addressed whether the DIFC Courts had jurisdiction and power to issue freezing relief supporting foreign proceedings capable of producing a judgment enforceable in Dubai or the DIFC. The Court of Appeal ultimately allowed the appeal and continued the freezing orders, with further matters remitted to the Court of First Instance.

Strategic significance

It illustrates that the applicant must analyse:

• DIFC jurisdiction;
• foreign proceedings;
• anticipated foreign judgment;
• enforceability;
• location of assets;
• territorial scope;
• ancillary disclosure;
• interaction between DIFC and foreign courts.

13. Worldwide Freezing Orders

A worldwide freezing order is considerably more intrusive than an order limited to assets within the court's territory.

A claimant should therefore explain:

1. why domestic relief is insufficient;
2. where the assets may be located;
3. why worldwide protection is necessary;
4. how the order can practically operate;
5. what safeguards protect third parties;
6. what undertaking in damages is offered.

The DIFC standard order expressly distinguishes between a DIFC-limited injunction and a worldwide injunction.

14. Case Law 5 — Carmon v Cuenda

Carmon Reestrutura-engenharia E Serviços Técnicos Especiais (SU) LDA v Antonio Joao Catete Lopes Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003

This DIFC Court of Appeal decision is particularly important concerning the jurisdictional foundation for freezing relief supporting foreign proceedings.

The case examined the relationship between the DIFC Court's interim-remedies powers and foreign proceedings.

The later Techteryx decision relied upon the reasoning in Carmon when explaining that freezing relief can protect the court's jurisdiction over recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.

Strategic lesson

A claimant seeking interim relief in support of foreign litigation should formulate the application around:

FOREIGN PROCEEDING → POTENTIAL JUDGMENT → RECOGNITION/ENFORCEMENT → ASSETS → RISK OF DISSIPATION

rather than treating the UAE court as a substitute trial court for the foreign dispute.

15. Jurisdiction Is a Strategic Weapon

A freezing application can fail even where the underlying claim appears strong if the chosen court lacks jurisdiction.

The applicant should therefore establish:

• jurisdiction over the defendant;
• jurisdiction over the assets where relevant;
• jurisdiction to grant interim relief;
• relationship between the local and foreign proceedings;
• enforceability of the expected judgment;
• territorial reach of the proposed order.

Memory trigger

Jurisdiction before dissipation.

16. Case Law 6 — EFG Bank v Marj Holding

EFG (Middle East) Ltd & EFG Bank Ltd v Marj Holding Ltd & Others [2025] DIFC CFI 029

This case involved a worldwide freezing order initially granted urgently and subsequently subjected to further litigation concerning continuation/discharge and costs.

Strategic importance

It illustrates that obtaining the order is not the end of the litigation.

The claimant must be prepared for:

• return-date hearings;
• discharge applications;
• jurisdiction challenges;
• variation applications;
• costs consequences;
• continued evidential scrutiny.

Litigation lesson

Freezing-order litigation is a continuing procedural process, not a one-day application.

17. Without-Notice Applications

Freezing orders may be sought without notice where giving prior notice could defeat the purpose of the remedy.

But this creates heightened responsibilities for the applicant.

The applicant should make proper disclosure of:

• favourable facts;
• unfavourable facts;
• potential defences;
• jurisdictional difficulties;
• material evidence;
• procedural history.

The court needs a reliable picture because the defendant is temporarily absent from the hearing.

Memory trigger

Without notice ≠ without responsibility.

18. Full and Frank Disclosure

The claimant's litigation strategy should assume that the court will scrutinise the application closely.

Material omissions can result in:

• discharge;
• variation;
• costs orders;
• criticism of the applicant;
• possible adverse consequences concerning continuation of relief.

This is especially important because freezing orders can carry a penal notice and contempt consequences. The DIFC standard freezing order expressly warns that breach can lead to contempt consequences.

19. Case Law 7 — Ganesan Muthiah v Abdul Rahman Mohammad

Ganesan Muthiah v Abdul Rahman Mohammad [2025] DIFC CFI 055

This case demonstrates the interaction between:

• default judgment;
• worldwide freezing relief;
• jurisdiction;
• setting aside;
• discharge.

A worldwide freezing order was granted after default judgment, but the defendant challenged both the judgment and the freezing order. The judgment was subsequently set aside and the freezing order discharged after the court determined that the DIFC Courts lacked jurisdiction or should not have exercised it.

Strategic lesson

A freezing order cannot safely stand independently of the jurisdictional foundation supporting the substantive proceedings.

The applicant should therefore establish jurisdiction before investing heavily in the freezing strategy.

20. Case Law 8 — Nadil v Nameer

Nadil & Noshaba v Nameer & Naseema [2025] DIFC CA

This case demonstrates the importance of jurisdiction in applications for UAE-wide freezing orders.

The DIFC Court of Appeal granted interim relief on the basis that there was a reasonably arguable jurisdictional foundation, while expressly leaving the final jurisdictional question open for subsequent determination.

Strategic lesson

Interim relief may sometimes be obtained while jurisdiction remains contested, but the applicant should expect the jurisdictional issue to return for determination.

21. Asset Disclosure Is Often as Important as the Freeze

A freezing order becomes substantially more effective when accompanied by appropriate disclosure relief.

The claimant may need information concerning:

• bank accounts;
• real estate;
• shares;
• companies;
• trusts;
• digital assets;
• vehicles;
• receivables;
• securities;
• beneficial ownership;
• transfers;
• assets held through nominees.

Strategy

FREEZE + DISCLOSURE

is often more effective than:

FREEZE ALONE

because identifying the asset base is essential to eventual enforcement.

22. Case Law 9 — Trafigura: Ancillary Disclosure

The continuing Trafigura litigation demonstrates the importance of ancillary disclosure.

The 2026 proceedings included applications seeking additional disclosure concerning assets covered by the freezing order, variation of the order and information concerning the source of legal funding.

Lesson

Freezing-order strategy should therefore include an asset-discovery plan from the beginning.

23. Fortification and Cross-Undertaking in Damages

A claimant seeking powerful interim relief may be required to provide a cross-undertaking in damages.

Its purpose is to protect the defendant if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted and caused compensable loss.

In Techteryx, the freezing order included a USD 2 million fortification requirement in relation to the cross-undertaking.

Strategic calculation

The applicant should therefore consider:

Expected benefit of freeze vs potential liability if order proves unjustified

24. Balance of Convenience

The court must consider the effect of the order on both sides.

Relevant questions include:

• Will ordinary business continue?
• Are legitimate expenses permitted?
• Will employees be paid?
• Can taxes be paid?
• Can legal fees be paid?
• Will third-party contracts be affected?
• Will banking relationships be disrupted?
• Will the order unnecessarily cripple the defendant's business?

In Techteryx, the court recognised the importance of avoiding serious and potentially irremediable prejudice to the respondent's business when deciding whether and how interim relief should continue.

25. Ordinary Course of Business

A properly drafted freezing order normally needs to distinguish prohibited dissipation from legitimate business expenditure.

The claimant should therefore avoid seeking an order that effectively prevents the defendant from:

• paying employees;
• paying ordinary suppliers;
• meeting taxes;
• paying reasonable legal expenses;
• conducting legitimate business.

A vague order can create unnecessary contempt disputes.

26. Third-Party Banks

A freezing order can create practical issues for:

• banks;
• brokers;
• custodians;
• payment processors;
• corporate service providers;
• crypto exchanges.

A third party should not automatically be treated as a wrongdoer merely because it holds an account containing frozen assets.

The order should clearly identify:

• what assets are frozen;
• what transactions are prohibited;
• permitted transactions;
• notice requirements;
• consequences of assisting a breach.

The DIFC standard order expressly warns third parties who knowingly assist a breach that they may face contempt consequences.

27. Freezing Orders and Digital Assets

Digital assets create additional strategic problems.

A claimant may need to identify:

• wallet addresses;
• private-key control;
• exchange accounts;
• custodial arrangements;
• beneficial ownership;
• stablecoin accounts;
• traceable proceeds;
• blockchain transaction history.

The crucial distinction

Technical control ≠ legal ownership

and:

Blockchain traceability ≠ automatic recoverability

28. Freezing Orders and Cryptocurrency

The Techteryx litigation shows how freezing and proprietary relief can operate in sophisticated digital-asset disputes involving stablecoin reserves and cross-border financial transfers.

The claimant should therefore consider whether the appropriate relief is:

• general freezing relief;
• proprietary injunction;
• disclosure order;
• tracing-related relief;
• third-party disclosure;
• preservation order.

29. Enforcement Strategy

The freezing order is not the final objective.

The real objective is usually:

PRESERVE ASSETS → OBTAIN JUDGMENT/AWARD → RECOGNISE → EXECUTE → RECOVER

Therefore, before seeking the order, ask:

What will I do with the asset after obtaining judgment?

Possible enforcement routes may involve:

• bank accounts;
• real property;
• shares;
• receivables;
• movable assets;
• securities;
• digital assets;
• foreign assets.

30. Freezing Order vs Precautionary Attachment

The exact requirements for onshore UAE precautionary attachment should be checked against the applicable UAE procedural legislation and the competent emirate court.

31. Litigation Strategy — Applicant

A claimant should prepare the application in this order:

Stage 1 — Jurisdiction

Establish why this court can hear the application.

Stage 2 — Underlying claim

Present a concise, evidence-based good arguable case.

Stage 3 — Assets

Identify known assets and likely asset locations.

Stage 4 — Dissipation evidence

Identify concrete facts suggesting a real risk.

Stage 5 — Scope

Request only the relief actually necessary.

Stage 6 — Disclosure

Seek appropriate ancillary asset information.

Stage 7 — Undertaking

Address cross-undertaking and possible fortification.

Stage 8 — Full and frank disclosure

Disclose adverse facts.

Stage 9 — Draft order

Make the proposed order precise.

Stage 10 — Return hearing

Prepare immediately for discharge/variation arguments.

32. Litigation Strategy — Defendant

A defendant should immediately examine:

1. jurisdiction;
2. service;
3. merits threshold;
4. alleged dissipation evidence;
5. material non-disclosures;
6. excessive territorial scope;
7. inadequate undertaking;
8. excessive financial limit;
9. interference with legitimate business;
10. third-party prejudice;
11. disclosure obligations;
12. procedural defects.

The defendant can potentially seek:

• discharge;
• variation;
• reduction of the monetary limit;
• territorial restriction;
• clarification of permitted transactions;
• costs;
• appropriate consequential relief.

33. Common Grounds for Discharge or Variation

A defendant may challenge the order on grounds such as:

1. No jurisdiction

The issuing court lacks jurisdiction.

2. Weak underlying claim

The required merits threshold is not satisfied.

3. No real risk of dissipation

The evidence does not establish the required risk.

4. Material non-disclosure

The applicant failed to present relevant adverse information.

5. Excessive scope

The order is wider than necessary.

6. Excessive amount

The frozen value substantially exceeds the legitimate claim.

7. Procedural unfairness

The order was improperly obtained or maintained.

8. Business prejudice

The order unnecessarily interferes with legitimate business operations.

9. Changed circumstances

New evidence may justify variation or discharge.

34. Freezing Order and Foreign Proceedings

Modern UAE commercial litigation frequently involves:

• English proceedings;
• arbitration;
• Hong Kong litigation;
• Singapore arbitration;
• DIFC proceedings;
• ADGM proceedings;
• onshore Dubai proceedings.

A freezing application may therefore be supportive rather than substantive.

The local court may be asked to preserve UAE assets while the merits are determined elsewhere.

Formula

FOREIGN CLAIM → UAE ASSETS → LOCAL INTERIM RELIEF → FOREIGN JUDGMENT/AWARD → RECOGNITION → EXECUTION

Carmon and Trafigura are particularly useful for understanding this cross-border dimension.

35. Freezing Order and Arbitration

Where arbitration is involved, examine:

• arbitration agreement;
• seat;
• institutional rules;
• tribunal's interim powers;
• emergency arbitrator;
• court-support jurisdiction;
• enforceability of award;
• location of assets.

A freezing order may sometimes be sought from a competent court even though the merits are being arbitrated elsewhere.

The key is:

Arbitration of merits does not automatically eliminate court-supported interim relief.

But jurisdiction must be established.

36. Six Core Case Laws

Additional authorities

1. Ganesan Muthiah v Abdul Rahman Mohammad [2025] DIFC CFI 055 — freezing order dependent upon sound jurisdictional foundation.
2. Nadil & Noshaba v Nameer & Naseema [2025] DIFC CA — interim freezing relief and jurisdictional questions.
3. Orabelle v Orzenia [2026] DIFC ARB 007 — good arguable case, assets, dissipation risk and just-and-convenient test.
4. Emirates NBD Bank PJSC v Almakhawi & Others [2025] DIFC CFI 039 — recent treatment of freezing-injunction requirements and worldwide-order considerations. 

37. Important UAE Jurisdictional Qualification

The strongest freezing-order authorities discussed above are principally DIFC and ADGM cases.

They should not be presented as though they automatically establish the law applicable in every onshore UAE court.

For an onshore UAE application, the lawyer should separately identify:

• the competent court;
• applicable Civil Procedure legislation;
• statutory grounds for precautionary attachment;
• required evidence;
• security requirements;
• service;
• appeal/objection mechanisms;
• execution consequences.

For DIFC/ADGM, the common-law-style freezing injunction framework is much more directly relevant.

38. Master Litigation Formula

JURISDICTION

↓

UNDERLYING CLAIM

↓

GOOD ARGUABLE CASE

↓

IDENTIFIABLE ASSETS

↓

REAL RISK OF DISSIPATION

↓

NECESSITY

↓

PROPORTIONALITY

↓

SCOPE

↓

FULL & FRANK DISCLOSURE

↓

CROSS-UNDERTAKING

↓

FREEZING ORDER

↓

ASSET DISCLOSURE

↓

RETURN HEARING

↓

JUDGMENT/AWARD

↓

RECOGNITION

↓

EXECUTION

39. Ultra-Fast Memory Triggers

1. Jurisdiction before freezing.
2. Freezing order is interim, not final relief.
3. Debt alone does not automatically justify freezing.
4. Good arguable case matters.
5. Real risk of dissipation matters.
6. Mere possibility of asset transfer is insufficient.
7. Evidence of dissipation is central.
8. Worldwide relief requires careful justification.
9. Freezing order is not ordinary security.
10. Proprietary injunction ≠ freezing injunction.
11. Disclosure can be as important as freezing.
12. Without notice ≠ without responsibility.
13. Full and frank disclosure is critical.
14. Cross-undertaking protects against wrongful restraint.
15. Fortification may be required.
16. Legitimate business expenditure should be addressed.
17. Third-party banks need clear instructions.
18. Digital assets require special identification and tracing.
19. Blockchain control ≠ legal ownership.
20. Foreign proceedings may support local interim relief where jurisdiction exists.
21. Freezing litigation continues after the initial order.
22. Return-date strategy is essential.
23. Discharge and variation remain possible.
24. Jurisdictional defects can undermine the entire order.
25. DIFC/ADGM freezing jurisprudence should not automatically be transplanted to onshore UAE courts.

Final Memory Line

UAE Freezing Order Litigation Strategy = Jurisdiction → Good Arguable Case → Assets → Real Dissipation Risk → Necessity → Proportionality → Full Disclosure → Undertaking → Precise Order → Asset Disclosure → Return Hearing → Judgment → Enforcement.

The central strategic principle is:

A freezing order protects the effectiveness of future justice; it is not a substitute for proving the underlying claim.