Can the DIFC Courts freeze assets held outside the DIFC?

• The DIFC Courts can freeze assets worldwide in support of proceedings running in another country.
• Neither the parties nor the assets need any connection to the DIFC.
• The test is whether the eventual foreign judgment could be recognised and enforced in the DIFC.
• Applications are made without notice and carry a duty of full disclosure.

What the DIFC Courts can freeze

Article 15(4) of Law No. 2 of 2025 confirms the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts to hear applications for interim relief. The law has applied since 14 March 2025, and the jurisdiction covers claims brought outside the DIFC. That relief includes freezing orders, disclosure orders and injunctions. Our litigation lawyers in Dubai act on urgent asset preservation applications and on challenges to orders already granted.

Part 25 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts supplies the machinery. Rule 25.24 contemplates an application made in relation to proceedings taking place outside the DIFC. A freezing order can restrain a respondent from dealing with assets whether or not those assets are inside the jurisdiction.

The practical significance is banking. Money moving through Emirates NBD, Mashreq or Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank can be restrained here. A foreign court order does not bind a UAE bank directly.

How the position changed between 2023 and 2026

In Sandra Holding v Al Saleh [2023] DIFC CA 003 the Court of Appeal set aside a worldwide freezing order. It had been granted in support of proceedings in Kuwait and France. The Court held that none of the statutory jurisdictional gateways was satisfied. The DIFC Courts therefore had no freestanding power to grant relief in aid of foreign proceedings.

That position lasted fourteen months. On 26 November 2024 the Court of Appeal decided Carmon Reestrutura v Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003 and departed from its own earlier decision. The claim concerned USD 20 million alleged to have been misappropriated, part of which had moved into two Emirates NBD accounts. A Hong Kong freezing injunction existed, and the bank denied it was bound by an order made in Hong Kong.

The Court of Appeal held that Sandra Holding had taken an unduly restrictive view of the court's powers. It is enough that the foreign proceedings may produce a judgment capable of recognition and enforcement in the DIFC. The court may act to prevent its own jurisdiction being defeated, and that includes its jurisdiction to recognise and enforce foreign judgments.

Law No. 2 of 2025 then codified the principle in Article 15(4). The route from a DIFC judgment to onshore assets is covered in our article on enforcing a DIFC judgment in mainland Dubai.

The two decisions that tested the new law

On 1 April 2025 the Court of First Instance refused a UAE-wide freezing order in Nadil v Nameer. The judge held that Articles 14 and 31 of the new law require a direct link to the DIFC. They were also read as requiring an asset within the DIFC at the point of enforcement.

The Court of Appeal overturned that decision. It held that the judge should have found a sufficiently arguable case for jurisdiction. It also observed that it would be surprising if the new law had contracted the court's powers.

Trafigura v Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001 settled the point. The applicants sought a UAE-wide freezing order and ancillary disclosure orders in support of proceedings in the High Court of England and Wales. The first instance judge again required a direct DIFC link and refused.

The Court of Appeal disagreed on five grounds. A freezing order sought in aid of the enforcement jurisdiction needs no separate head of jurisdiction. Carmon had already recognised the power to restrain dealings with assets inside or outside the jurisdiction. That power exists to stop the court's jurisdiction being defeated. Nothing in the new law changes that. And Article 15(4), read with the opening words of Article 15, confers the jurisdiction in any event.

The limit the court has kept

In Techteryx v Aria Commodities DMCC [2025] DIFC DEC 001 the applicant sought to freeze worldwide assets worth USD 456 million. The claim concerned the alleged misappropriation of stablecoin reserves. The applicant argued that Article 15(4) gave the court a freestanding power no longer tied to eventual recognition of a foreign judgment.

The court rejected that argument and applied the Privy Council decision in Convoy Collateral v Broad Idea. Justice Michael Black KC held that what matters is whether the applicant has a good arguable case for substantive relief. That relief must take the form of a judgment enforceable by the court asked for the injunction. The judgment states that the assets enjoined must be available to satisfy a judgment through some process of enforcement in the DIFC Courts.

That is the question to answer before filing. The issue is whether the judgment being pursued abroad could be recognised here, rather than whether the respondent holds DIFC assets. Our article on enforcement of foreign judgments in the UAE covers the recognition conditions.

What an application requires

Part 25 requires an application for a freezing order to be supported by affidavit evidence rather than a witness statement. The evidence must state the facts relied on for the claim and every material fact the court should know.

Most applications are made without notice, and the evidence must then explain why notice was not given. The duty of full and frank disclosure attaches to that choice. An order obtained on incomplete evidence can be discharged on the return date, with costs.

The order must contain an undertaking in damages unless the court orders otherwise. The court may require the applicant's legal representatives to give undertakings as well. Schedule A to Part 25 contains the model freezing order, which the court may modify for a particular case.

The same relief is available where the substantive dispute is arbitral rather than curial. That makes the DIFC a useful seat for parties whose counterparty banks in the UAE.

What happens when an order is breached

Articles 35(A) and 35(B) of Law No. 2 of 2025 give the DIFC Courts express contempt powers. The court may impose a fine on a party found in contempt. It may take any measure it considers necessary for the proper administration of justice. It may also refer the matter to the Attorney General of Dubai.

Enforcement against a respondent who ignores an order therefore moves outside the DIFC quickly. A separate criminal or regulatory freeze can apply to the same funds. Our article on asset freezing powers in the UAE describes that position.

What to do when assets start moving

• Establish where the eventual judgment would be enforced, since enforceability in the DIFC is the jurisdictional question.
• Identify the banks holding the funds, because the order binds them once they are notified.
• Prepare affidavit evidence rather than witness statements, as Part 25 requires for freezing applications.
• Assemble every material fact, including those unhelpful to the application, before filing without notice.
• Cost the undertaking in damages, since the court can require security behind it.

A respondent should move on the same timetable. The return date is the opportunity to discharge an order obtained on incomplete disclosure. The applicant's own affidavit is the first document to examine for the omission.

Can you still rely on the DIFC Courts for freezing relief?

On the current authorities, yes. Three years of movement between Sandra Holding, Carmon, the new law and two first instance refusals have settled the position. The Court of Appeal has twice confirmed that the DIFC Courts will freeze assets held anywhere, in support of proceedings anywhere. The condition is that the judgment in prospect could be recognised here.

The remaining uncertainty is about scope rather than power. Carmon itself noted that many orders would be expected to cover assets in Dubai rather than the world. That gives a respondent a real argument where enforcement in the DIFC is remote. Techteryx then fixed enforceability as the boundary. A claimant with a strong fraud case and a weak enforcement story is the one likely to fail.

The choice of governing law and jurisdiction made years earlier decides much of this. Our article on English law clauses in UAE contracts after the DIFC reforms covers that decision. Legal advice may be required to assess whether a particular claim supports an application here.

‍