Freezing orders: how are they enforced around the world? United Arab Emirates (ADGM and DIFC) perspective

This is the third in a series of articles which explore the enforcement of freezing orders in key jurisdictions around the world, including in England and Wales, Switzerland and the Middle East (specifically ADGM/DIFC). Whilst each jurisdiction enforces freezing orders in their own distinct way, the underlying rationale for enforcement remains the same; to ensure the terms of the relevant order are complied with.

Enforcement of Freezing Orders in the DIFC and ADGM Courts

Freezing orders, also known as Mareva injunctions, are among the most powerful interim remedies available to litigants seeking to preserve assets pending the resolution of a dispute. In the United Arab Emirates, the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Courts have developed sophisticated frameworks for both granting and enforcing these orders. Understanding how freezing orders are enforced in these jurisdictions is essential for practitioners advising clients with assets or business interests in the region.

The Nature and Purpose of Freezing Orders

A freezing order is an interlocutory injunction that restrains a respondent from disposing of, dealing with, or diminishing the value of their assets up to a specified amount. The fundamental purpose of such an order is to preserve assets so that, if the applicant succeeds in the underlying proceedings, there will be assets available to satisfy any eventual judgment. Both the DIFC Courts and the ADGM Courts recognise the importance of this remedy and have incorporated provisions for freezing orders into their respective procedural frameworks.

In the DIFC Courts, the power to grant freezing orders derives from Article 15 of the DIFC Court Law (Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025) and is further elaborated in Part 25 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC). The ADGM Courts similarly possess this power under Section 41 of the ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence, Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulations 2015, supplemented by the ADGM Court Procedure Rules. Both courts have adopted principles substantially derived from English common law, reflecting the broader legal heritage that underpins these financial free zones.

Obtaining a Freezing Order

Before examining enforcement mechanisms, it is important to understand the threshold requirements for obtaining a freezing order. Applicants in both jurisdictions must typically demonstrate that they have a good arguable case on the merits, that there is a real risk that the respondent will dissipate assets to frustrate any eventual judgment, and that it is just and convenient in all the circumstances to grant the relief sought. Applications are frequently made on an ex parte basis, given the risk that advance notice might prompt the very dissipation the order seeks to prevent.

The courts in both the DIFC and ADGM take seriously the obligations that come with ex parte applications. Applicants are subject to a duty of full and frank disclosure, meaning they must present all material facts to the court, including those that might be adverse to their application. Failure to comply with this duty can result in the discharge of the freezing order and potential adverse costs consequences.

Mechanisms of Enforcement Within the Financial Free Zones

Once a freezing order has been granted, the question of enforcement becomes paramount. Within the DIFC and ADGM themselves, enforcement is relatively straightforward. Both courts possess contempt powers that can be deployed against respondents who breach the terms of a freezing order. A respondent who deals with frozen assets in contravention of an order may be found in contempt of court and subjected to sanctions including fines, sequestration of assets, or, in extreme cases, committal to prison.

Freezing orders in both jurisdictions typically contain standard provisions requiring the respondent to disclose their assets above a certain value. This ancillary disclosure requirement is crucial to effective enforcement, as it enables the applicant to identify assets that might otherwise be concealed. Failure to comply with asset disclosure obligations can itself constitute contempt of court.

Third parties, such as banks and financial institutions holding assets of the respondent, are also bound by freezing orders once they have been notified of them. The DIFC and ADGM, as leading financial centres, are home to numerous banks and financial services providers. When these institutions receive notice of a freezing order, they are obliged to freeze the relevant accounts and refrain from processing transactions that would breach the order. Non-compliance exposes the third party to the risk of contempt proceedings and potential liability for any assets dissipated.

Enforcement Beyond the Financial Free Zones

A more complex question arises when assets are located outside the DIFC or ADGM, whether elsewhere in the UAE or in foreign jurisdictions. The DIFC and ADGM are common law enclaves within a predominantly civil law country, and the interaction between these legal systems can present challenges.

For assets located in onshore UAE (that is, outside the financial free zones), enforcement requires cooperation between the DIFC or ADGM Courts and the local UAE courts. Both the DIFC and ADGM have established mechanisms for the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments with onshore UAE courts. In the DIFC, this is facilitated by the DIFC Courts Law and subsequent protocols between the DIFC Courts and the Dubai Courts. The ADGM has similar arrangements with the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department. Under these frameworks, a freezing order granted by the DIFC or ADGM Courts can be rendered enforceable onshore through a relatively expedited process.

It is possible to apply directly to the UAE’s local or ‘onshore’ courts, i.e. the courts other than in the DIFC or ADGM. It is possible to apply for so-called precautionary attachments under Articles 247-251 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law (UAE Federal Decree-Law No.42 of 2022). Applicants must prove a prima facie claim and provide evidence of a risk of asset dissipation. It is considerably harder to enforce a foreign freezing order directly through the local courts, as evidence of reciprocity between the sending and receiving jurisdictions is required (e.g. evidence that an English court has recognised and enforced a UAE precautionary attachment is required before an English freezing order is enforced by the UAE courts).

For assets located in foreign jurisdictions, enforcement depends on the availability of mechanisms for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments or orders. DIFC and ADGM Courts have actively pursued memoranda of understanding and reciprocal enforcement arrangements with courts in other jurisdictions, including various common law countries. Where such arrangements exist, a freezing order can be registered and enforced in the foreign jurisdiction in accordance with its local procedures.

In the absence of a formal enforcement treaty or arrangement, an applicant may need to seek a fresh freezing order from the courts of the jurisdiction where the assets are located, using the DIFC or ADGM order as persuasive evidence of the need for interim relief. Many common law jurisdictions will give significant weight to orders issued by reputable courts such as those in the DIFC and ADGM.

Worldwide Freezing Orders

Both the DIFC Courts and the ADGM Courts have the power to grant worldwide freezing orders, which purport to restrain the respondent from dealing with assets wherever they may be located globally. These orders are particularly valuable where a respondent has assets spread across multiple jurisdictions and there is a genuine risk of international dissipation.

The enforcement of worldwide freezing orders presents distinct challenges. While the order is binding on the respondent personally, its effectiveness against third parties and in foreign jurisdictions depends on local law and the willingness of foreign courts to recognise and give effect to the order. Applicants seeking to enforce a worldwide freezing order will often need to take active steps in each relevant jurisdiction, whether by seeking recognition of the DIFC or ADGM order or by obtaining parallel relief from local courts.

Practical Considerations

Practitioners advising clients on the enforcement of freezing orders in the DIFC and ADGM should be mindful of several practical considerations. Speed is often of the essence, as delays can provide an opportunity for dissipation. It is therefore important to have enforcement strategies prepared in advance and to act promptly once an order is obtained. Coordination with local counsel in relevant jurisdictions is essential where assets are located outside the free zones. Finally, ongoing monitoring of compliance is necessary, as freezing orders are not self-executing and require active vigilance to be effective.

In conclusion, the DIFC and ADGM Courts offer robust mechanisms for the enforcement of freezing orders, both within the free zones and, through cooperative arrangements, beyond them. Their common law foundations, combined with their integration into the broader UAE legal system and their international networks, make them effective forums for asset preservation in complex cross-border disputes.