Civil Law And UAE Freezing Orders And Asset Preservation Measures

1. Introduction

Freezing orders and asset-preservation measures are important forms of interim relief used to prevent a defendant from dissipating, transferring, concealing, or otherwise dealing with assets before a civil judgment or arbitral award can be enforced.

In the UAE, the legal position is particularly significant because the country contains several judicial systems. Asset preservation may involve:

the onshore UAE/Dubai or Abu Dhabi courts;

the DIFC Courts;

the ADGM Courts;

arbitral tribunals;

enforcement courts;

and, in cross-border disputes, foreign courts seeking assistance in preserving UAE assets.

A freezing order generally prevents a respondent from dealing with assets up to a specified value. It does not ordinarily determine ownership of the assets or give the claimant priority over other creditors.

A proprietary injunction, by contrast, is generally directed toward particular property or traceable proceeds in which the claimant asserts a proprietary interest.

The distinction is important because the evidential and jurisdictional requirements can differ.

2. Meaning of a Freezing Order

A freezing order is an interim judicial measure designed to preserve the practical value of a potential judgment.

Its central purpose is not to punish the defendant. It is to prevent the enforcement process from being defeated by asset dissipation.

For example, if a claimant establishes a serious claim for USD 20 million and can demonstrate a genuine risk that the defendant will transfer its assets outside the jurisdiction, the court may restrain the defendant from:

transferring bank funds;

selling real estate;

disposing of shares;

transferring vessels;

moving assets outside the UAE;

dealing with corporate assets;

diminishing the value of assets;

or dealing with assets through controlled third parties.

DIFC Court rules expressly recognize freezing orders restraining a party from removing assets from the jurisdiction or dealing with assets whether located inside or outside the jurisdiction. They also permit orders requiring disclosure concerning the location of assets.

3. Asset Preservation Is Wider Than Freezing Orders

Asset preservation can include several different remedies.

A. Freezing injunction

Prevents dissipation of assets up to a specified value.

B. Proprietary injunction

Protects specifically identified property or traceable proceeds where the claimant asserts a proprietary interest.

C. Precautionary attachment

A court-controlled attachment mechanism directed at particular assets for the protection of a creditor's claim.

D. Preservation of property

The court may order property to be detained, preserved, inspected, sampled or otherwise protected.

E. Disclosure orders

The respondent may be required to provide information concerning:

bank accounts;

property;

shares;

beneficial ownership;

transfers;

controlled entities;

and the location of assets.

F. Search and preservation orders

In appropriate cases, the court can order preservation of evidence or access to premises.

The DIFC procedural regime expressly places freezing orders, property-preservation orders, asset-information orders and search orders within its interim-remedies framework.

4. UAE Civil-Law Perspective

From a civil-law perspective, the preservation of assets serves the principle that judicial protection should remain effective.

A claimant who ultimately proves a debt or damages claim should not ordinarily be deprived of meaningful enforcement merely because the defendant transferred assets during litigation.

The preservation remedy therefore performs a preventive function.

It does not generally establish the ultimate liability of the defendant.

The court is deciding whether the circumstances justify temporary protection pending determination of the substantive dispute.

This produces an important distinction:

5. DIFC Courts and Freezing Orders

The DIFC Courts provide one of the clearest examples of freezing-order jurisprudence in the UAE.

Under Part 25 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts, the court can grant interim injunctions and orders for preservation of property, including freezing orders.

The rules expressly contemplate:

freezing assets located in the DIFC;

restraining dealings with assets outside the DIFC;

obtaining information concerning assets;

preserving evidence;

and granting interim relief before final determination.

The DIFC's standard freezing-order form also contemplates worldwide orders in appropriate circumstances.

6. Principal Requirements for a Freezing Order

DIFC jurisprudence has developed principles broadly influenced by common-law freezing injunction doctrine.

A typical application requires consideration of:

6.1 Good arguable case

The claimant must demonstrate a sufficiently strong substantive claim.

This does not mean that the claimant must prove the case finally at the interim stage.

The court instead asks whether there is a sufficiently arguable basis for the anticipated judgment.

6.2 Assets against which enforcement may occur

There must be assets capable of satisfying a future judgment.

6.3 Real risk of dissipation

The claimant generally must demonstrate a genuine risk that the defendant may dispose of or deal with assets so as to frustrate enforcement.

A mere allegation that a defendant possesses assets is insufficient.

6.4 Just and convenient relief

The court considers whether granting the injunction is appropriate in the circumstances.

6.5 Adequacy of undertaking

Because an injunction may subsequently prove unjustified, the applicant may be required to provide an undertaking concerning damages.

6.6 Full and frank disclosure

Where an application is made without notice, the applicant assumes a particularly important obligation to disclose material facts, including matters adverse to its own application.

The DIFC Courts have expressly described the freezing-order test in terms of a good arguable case, assets capable of enforcement, a real risk of dissipation and whether the relief is just and convenient.

7. Without-Notice Freezing Orders

A freezing order may sometimes be granted ex parte, meaning without the respondent being present at the initial hearing.

This is particularly important where advance notice would create the very risk that the injunction is intended to prevent.

For example, if the claimant demonstrates that giving notice could result in:

immediate transfer of bank funds;

disposal of property;

movement of cryptocurrency;

transfer of shares;

movement of vessels;

or restructuring of ownership,

the court may consider an initial without-notice order.

However, such relief is exceptional because the defendant has not yet had an opportunity to respond.

Consequently, the court generally fixes a return hearing at which the respondent can seek:

discharge;

variation;

limitation;

or continuation of the order.

The DIFC standard freezing-order form expressly provides for an initial without-notice order and a subsequent return hearing.

8. Worldwide Freezing Orders

A worldwide freezing order seeks to restrain dealings with assets wherever located.

Such orders raise especially difficult jurisdictional issues.

A UAE court cannot simply assume that a worldwide order will automatically be enforceable in every foreign jurisdiction.

The effectiveness of the order depends partly upon:

the court's jurisdiction;

the legal basis for the order;

service;

recognition by foreign courts;

the location of the assets;

and the respondent's relationship with the jurisdiction.

DIFC jurisprudence has nevertheless developed significant authority concerning worldwide freezing orders.

9. Case Law

Case 1: Ithmar Capital Ltd v 8 Investment Inc & 8 Investment FZE [2008] DIFC CA 001

This is an important early DIFC freezing-order authority.

The DIFC Court of Appeal considered a freezing injunction concerning assets in the UAE and discussed the development of the Mareva/freezing-order jurisdiction.

The order restrained the defendant from disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of tangible and intangible assets in the UAE.

Importance

The case demonstrates that the DIFC Courts historically adopted sophisticated freezing-injunction mechanisms comparable to those used in common-law jurisdictions.

It is particularly important for understanding the early development of DIFC asset-preservation jurisprudence.

Case 2: Bocimar International N.V. v Emirates Trading Agency LLC [2015] DIFC CFI 008

The DIFC Court considered the procedural foundation for freezing orders under Part 25.

The case confirms that the DIFC Courts' interim-remedy jurisdiction encompasses freezing orders and that such orders can be made at different stages of proceedings.

Legal significance

The decision illustrates that freezing relief is not restricted to the moment immediately preceding trial.

It can be used where necessary to protect the effectiveness of proceedings and eventual enforcement.

The case is particularly useful for explaining the relationship between Part 25 and the DIFC Courts' statutory powers.

Case 3: Sandra Holding Ltd & Nuri Musaed Al Saleh v Fawzi Musaed Al Saleh & Others [2023] DIFC CA 003

This is one of the most important UAE cases concerning worldwide freezing orders.

The DIFC Court of First Instance had granted worldwide freezing orders restraining the defendants from dealing with assets up to USD 45 million.

The Court of Appeal subsequently allowed the appeal and held that, on the relevant statutory framework applicable at the time, the DIFC Courts lacked jurisdiction to grant the particular worldwide freezing order sought.

The orders were therefore set aside.

Importance

The case demonstrates a fundamental principle:

The existence of a broad freezing power under procedural rules does not eliminate the need for an independent jurisdictional foundation.

Thus:

jurisdiction first, interim remedy second.

This distinction is critical when seeking UAE-wide or worldwide relief.

Case 4: Carmon Reestrutura-engenharia E Serviços Técnicos Especiais (SU) LDA v Antonio Joao Catete Lopes Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003

Carmon represents an important development following Sandra Holding.

The case concerned whether the DIFC Courts could grant a worldwide freezing order in anticipation of a foreign judgment that might subsequently be recognized and enforced in the DIFC.

The Court of Appeal considered the DIFC Court's jurisdiction to issue interim relief supporting the effectiveness of its foreign-judgment recognition and enforcement jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that the DIFC Courts possessed relevant powers to grant freezing relief in circumstances where dissipation could frustrate future recognition and enforcement.

Importance

Carmon is particularly important for international litigation.

It demonstrates that an interim freezing order can operate as an instrument supporting the court's broader enforcement jurisdiction.

The case therefore connects:

foreign proceedings → anticipated judgment → recognition → enforcement → asset preservation.

10. Case 5: Trafigura Pte Ltd & Trafigura India Pvt Ltd v Prateek Gupta & Ginni Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001

Trafigura is particularly important because it considered freezing jurisdiction under the newer DIFC Courts Law of 2025.

The case involved an application for a UAE-wide freezing order supporting English proceedings.

The Court of Appeal examined whether the new legislation had removed or substantially restricted the DIFC Courts' power to grant interim relief supporting foreign proceedings.

The Court considered Article 15(4) of the 2025 DIFC Courts Law and concluded that the relevant jurisdiction to grant suitable precautionary measures within the DIFC remained available.

Importance

The case is significant because it shows that the statutory framework changed in 2025 but did not necessarily eliminate the DIFC Courts' role in cross-border asset preservation.

It should therefore be considered alongside Carmon when analyzing current DIFC freezing jurisdiction.

11. Case 6: Quortia Ltd v Frank Irrling [2026] DIFC CFI 117/2025

This recent case illustrates the practical operation of a UAE freezing order.

The DIFC Court granted a without-notice freezing order restraining the defendant from removing, disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of assets in the UAE up to approximately EUR 3.52 million.

The order also identified bank accounts held with a UAE bank and allowed specified amounts for living and legal expenses.

The defendant subsequently challenged both jurisdiction and the continuation of the injunction, but the Court dismissed those applications and continued the injunction.

Importance

The case demonstrates that a freezing order:

may be granted without notice;

can cover UAE assets;

can identify bank accounts;

normally operates subject to exceptions for reasonable expenses;

and remains subject to judicial review after the respondent has an opportunity to respond.

12. Case 7: Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others [2025] DIFC DEC 001

Techteryx is particularly significant for modern financial disputes.

The DIFC Court continued:

a proprietary injunction concerning approximately USD 456 million of transferred funds or traceable proceeds; and

a worldwide freezing injunction covering assets up to the same value.

The order also included extensive disclosure obligations concerning the location, value and ultimate beneficiaries of the transferred funds and their traceable proceeds.

Importance

This case demonstrates the practical relationship between:

proprietary claims;

tracing;

freezing orders;

disclosure;

banking assets;

and international enforcement.

It is particularly relevant to fraud, misappropriation and complex financial-transfer litigation.

13. Case 8: Naqid v Naqid, ARB 004/2024

This case demonstrates the relationship between arbitration and asset preservation.

After recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, the DIFC Court granted a freezing order covering assets up to specified monetary amounts.

The order extended to assets including:

vessels;

shareholdings;

bank accounts;

jointly controlled assets;

and assets capable of being controlled by the respondent.

The case illustrates that asset preservation can operate alongside the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

Importance

It demonstrates that arbitration does not necessarily deprive courts of jurisdiction to grant supportive interim relief.

14. Case 9: Sandra Holding — Damages Following Wrongful Freezing Relief

Sandra Holding also provides an important lesson concerning the consequences of an improperly granted freezing order.

Following the Court of Appeal's decision setting aside the worldwide freezing orders, the defendants pursued an inquiry into damages caused by those orders.

The DIFC Court subsequently ordered an inquiry into damages.

Importance

This reinforces the principle that freezing relief is not risk-free for the applicant.

A claimant seeking extraordinary interim relief may face financial consequences where the order is subsequently discharged and the relevant undertaking in damages becomes engaged.

15. Proprietary Injunction Versus Freezing Order

These remedies should not be confused.

Freezing order

The claimant ordinarily says:

“The defendant owes me money and may dissipate assets before judgment.”

The order therefore protects the pool of assets available for enforcement.

Proprietary injunction

The claimant ordinarily says:

“These particular assets, or their traceable proceeds, belong to me.”

The court therefore seeks to preserve the specific property.

Techteryx provides a particularly clear example because the DIFC Court maintained both a proprietary injunction and a worldwide freezing injunction.

16. Freezing Orders and Bank Accounts

Bank accounts are frequently central to asset-preservation applications.

A freezing order may identify:

accounts held directly by the defendant;

accounts held jointly;

accounts controlled indirectly;

traceable proceeds;

and assets held through corporate structures.

However, a freezing order does not necessarily mean that the bank becomes the owner of the money or that the claimant automatically obtains the funds.

The purpose is generally preservation.

The respondent may also be permitted to make specified payments, such as:

ordinary living expenses;

reasonable legal expenses;

ordinary business expenses where authorized;

and payments specifically permitted by the order.

This is why freezing orders should be interpreted according to their exact wording.

17. Corporate Structures and Beneficial Ownership

Modern UAE asset-preservation disputes frequently involve companies rather than assets held directly by individuals.

A respondent may attempt to place assets in:

subsidiaries;

holding companies;

nominees;

family companies;

offshore entities;

trusts;

investment vehicles;

or related-party entities.

Freezing orders may therefore be drafted to cover assets that the respondent can directly or indirectly control.

The Sandra Holding order, for example, expressly addressed assets held in the respondent's own name as well as assets held jointly or otherwise subject to the respondent's direct or indirect control.

However, the court must distinguish between:

control of an asset and ownership of an asset.

A company is ordinarily a separate legal person. Merely establishing a corporate connection does not automatically make the company's assets the personal assets of its shareholder.

18. Disclosure Orders

Asset preservation frequently requires disclosure.

A freezing order may be ineffective if the claimant does not know:

where assets are located;

which banks hold them;

through which entities they are held;

who ultimately controls them;

whether they have been transferred;

or what happened to transferred money.

Consequently, courts may combine freezing relief with disclosure obligations.

Techteryx illustrates this approach by requiring information concerning onward dealings, current value, location and ultimate beneficiaries of transferred funds and traceable proceeds.

19. Freezing Orders and Fraud

Freezing orders are particularly significant in fraud litigation.

Fraud cases can involve rapid movement of assets between:

individuals;

companies;

bank accounts;

jurisdictions;

cryptocurrencies;

investment vehicles;

and nominees.

The claimant may therefore seek simultaneous:

substantive fraud claims;

proprietary claims;

tracing;

freezing relief;

disclosure;

and ultimately restitution or damages.

The combination can be especially powerful where the claimant can establish a sufficiently arguable fraud claim and concrete evidence of potential dissipation.

20. Freezing Orders and Arbitration

An arbitral tribunal may possess powers to order interim measures depending on the applicable arbitration law and institutional rules.

But an arbitral order may not always have the same practical coercive effect as a court injunction.

Consequently, parties may seek assistance from courts.

This is particularly relevant in the DIFC where the courts can provide interim judicial relief in support of arbitration and enforcement.

Naqid demonstrates how arbitration, award recognition and freezing relief can operate together.

21. Freezing Orders in Support of Foreign Proceedings

A claimant does not necessarily need its substantive proceedings to be in the UAE.

A cross-border claimant may have:

English litigation;

Hong Kong litigation;

Cypriot litigation;

Singapore arbitration;

or another foreign proceeding,

while the defendant holds assets in the UAE.

The DIFC Courts have increasingly dealt with such applications.

Carmon specifically addressed the ability of the DIFC Courts to issue interim relief protecting the effectiveness of future recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Trafigura and Quortia further illustrate the continuing importance of DIFC interim relief in support of foreign litigation.

22. The 2025 DIFC Courts Law

The current statutory position must be distinguished from older cases.

The DIFC Courts Law No. 2 of 2025 replaced the earlier statutory framework under which several leading freezing-order cases were decided.

Accordingly, cases such as:

Ithmar;

Sandra Holding;

Carmon;

must be read in their respective statutory contexts.

The later Trafigura decision is particularly useful because it considers freezing jurisdiction under the newer 2025 legislative framework.

This is important when preparing contemporary UAE litigation advice: an older case remains useful for legal principle, but its jurisdictional reasoning must be tested against the legislation currently in force.

23. Safeguards Against Abuse

Because freezing orders can significantly affect a defendant's property rights, courts impose procedural safeguards.

Important safeguards include:

23.1 Full and frank disclosure

An applicant seeking without-notice relief must disclose material facts, including facts adverse to its application.

23.2 Undertaking in damages

The applicant may have to compensate the respondent if the injunction later proves unjustified and loss results.

23.3 Return hearing

A respondent normally receives an opportunity to challenge a without-notice order.

23.4 Defined monetary limit

The order will normally specify the maximum value to be preserved.

23.5 Permitted expenditure

Reasonable living, business or legal expenses may be allowed.

23.6 Judicial variation

The respondent can seek variation or discharge.

23.7 Contempt consequences

Deliberate violation may expose the respondent to contempt-related consequences in jurisdictions such as the DIFC.

The DIFC standard form expressly warns that disobedience can result in contempt sanctions and other consequences.

24. Real Risk of Dissipation

The applicant must distinguish between:

mere possibility of dissipation

and

a real risk of dissipation.

Relevant circumstances can include:

previous unexplained transfers;

movement of funds between jurisdictions;

fraudulent transactions;

concealment of beneficial ownership;

creation of unexplained corporate structures;

attempts to sell or transfer significant assets;

failure to provide credible information about assets;

evidence of previous dishonesty concerning property;

or conduct suggesting that enforcement may be deliberately frustrated.

The court assesses the totality of circumstances rather than applying a purely mechanical formula.

25. Freezing Order Does Not Create Security

A crucial principle is that a freezing order generally does not transform an unsecured claimant into a secured creditor.

The claimant does not ordinarily obtain:

a proprietary interest in every frozen asset;

priority over existing secured creditors;

automatic ownership;

or immediate entitlement to the defendant's bank funds.

The order preserves assets so that a successful claimant may later seek enforcement.

This distinction is particularly important in insolvency situations.

26. Relationship With Enforcement

A freezing order and enforcement are separate stages.

Stage 1 — Substantive claim

The claimant establishes its contractual, tortious, restitutionary or other cause of action.

Stage 2 — Interim preservation

The court freezes or preserves assets.

Stage 3 — Judgment or award

The claimant obtains a final decision.

Stage 4 — Recognition/enforcement

The judgment or award becomes enforceable against the defendant's assets.

Stage 5 — Execution

The appropriate enforcement authority takes steps against the preserved assets.

The freezing order therefore functions as a bridge between litigation and enforcement.

27. Jurisdictional Problems

The most difficult UAE cases often involve jurisdiction.

A claimant must ask:

Which UAE court has jurisdiction?

Is the defendant within that court's jurisdiction?

Are the assets within the jurisdiction?

Is the order sought only within the jurisdiction or worldwide?

Is the application supporting foreign proceedings?

Is there an arbitration agreement?

Is another UAE court already seized of the dispute?

Can the resulting order actually be enforced where the assets are located?

Sandra Holding is a powerful warning that procedural power alone does not necessarily establish jurisdiction.

Carmon and Trafigura demonstrate the subsequent development of DIFC jurisdiction concerning cross-border interim relief.

28. Key Principles Emerging From the Case Law

The UAE jurisprudence supports several important principles:

Principle 1 — Freezing relief is protective

Its purpose is preservation, not punishment.

Principle 2 — Jurisdiction is fundamental

A court must possess jurisdiction before exercising freezing powers.

Principle 3 — A strong substantive claim is required

The applicant must generally establish a sufficiently arguable case.

Principle 4 — Dissipation risk matters

The claimant must establish a genuine enforcement risk rather than merely alleging that the defendant possesses assets.

Principle 5 — Worldwide orders require particular care

The court must identify a proper jurisdictional and legal foundation.

Principle 6 — Disclosure may accompany freezing relief

Knowing where assets are located is often necessary to make preservation effective.

Principle 7 — Proprietary relief is different

A proprietary injunction protects particular property or traceable proceeds rather than merely preserving the defendant's general asset pool.

Principle 8 — Arbitration does not necessarily exclude court assistance

Courts may provide supportive interim relief in appropriate circumstances.

Principle 9 — Wrongful relief can produce liability

The applicant's undertaking in damages can become significant if the order is discharged and loss is established.

Principle 10 — Current legislation matters

Older DIFC freezing-order decisions must be read against the current DIFC Courts Law and procedural rules.

29. Important Case-Law Summary

30. Practical Legal Framework

For a claimant seeking asset preservation in the UAE, the analysis should normally proceed as follows:

First: identify the substantive claim.

Second: identify the relevant court or arbitral forum.

Third: identify the UAE assets.

Fourth: establish the legal jurisdiction for interim relief.

Fifth: demonstrate the strength of the underlying claim.

Sixth: demonstrate a real risk of dissipation.

Seventh: identify whether a freezing order, proprietary injunction, precautionary attachment, disclosure order or combination is appropriate.

Eighth: prepare evidence concerning the assets and the defendant's conduct.

Ninth: provide the required undertaking or security where ordered.

Tenth: ensure complete and frank disclosure in any without-notice application.

Eleventh: formulate the order precisely, including permitted expenditures and the monetary ceiling.

Twelfth: plan separately for enforcement after judgment or award.

31. Conclusion

UAE law provides significant mechanisms for preserving assets during civil and commercial disputes, but the available remedy depends heavily on the court involved.

The DIFC Courts have developed particularly sophisticated freezing-order jurisprudence, including domestic, UAE-wide and, in appropriate circumstances, worldwide asset-preservation measures.

The cases of Ithmar, Bocimar, Sandra Holding, Carmon, Trafigura, Techteryx, Quortia and Naqid demonstrate the evolution of the jurisdiction from traditional Mareva-style protection toward sophisticated cross-border asset-preservation mechanisms.

At the same time, Sandra Holding demonstrates the importance of jurisdictional limits, while Carmon and Trafigura demonstrate the subsequent development of the DIFC Courts' ability to support foreign litigation and enforcement.

The central civil-law function of a freezing order is therefore preservation of the effectiveness of justice: it seeks to ensure that a future judgment or arbitral award is not rendered practically worthless by the dissipation of assets before enforcement.

The remedy remains exceptional and carefully controlled because it interferes with the respondent's ability to deal freely with property. Consequently, the applicant must generally establish a sufficiently strong underlying case, a genuine risk to enforcement, an appropriate jurisdictional basis and procedural fairness safeguards.

Academic note: This discussion is intended for legal research and study. The precise availability of a freezing order or precautionary attachment depends on the applicable UAE court, current legislation, procedural rules, facts, and the location and ownership of the assets.