Dubai Courts Enable Private Enforcement of Court Orders

The Dubai Courts have introduced a notable new enforcement power with Decision No. 2 of 2026, which permits licensed private companies to carry out certain judicial enforcement procedures under court supervision. The move reflects Dubai's continued commitment to modernising its dispute resolution framework and strengthening the practical effectiveness of judgments, a critical pillar of investor confidence and legal certainty.

The decision in context

While enforcement has traditionally been the sole responsibility of court execution departments, the increasing sophistication of commercial disputes and asset structures has driven demand for more specialised operational capability. The new framework introduces a model allowing private sector expertise to support execution while courts retain full supervisory authority.

Under the decision, licensed enforcement companies may assist with:

• Asset identification and tracing.
• Attachment and custody of movable and immovable property.
• Sale of seized assets, including via public auction.
• Transfer or delivery of assets to judgment creditors.

The scope is not closed and the courts retain discretion to outsource additional enforcement procedures as they see fit. Importantly, judicial control remains central. Enforcement agents must operate under the supervision of the competent execution judge and in accordance with the procedures set out in Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (the Civil Procedures Law). Agents are required to document their actions in prescribed formats, and they assume the responsibilities ordinarily vested in court execution officers, ensuring procedural integrity and legal safeguards are preserved.

The decision also establishes meaningful accountability measures. Enforcement agents must maintain strict confidentiality, act with integrity, and immediately report any obstacles, errors, or irregularities encountered during execution. They are prohibited from handling matters involving personal connections, including cases involving spouses or relatives, and may not use the courts' logo, claim to be government employees, or speak to the media about ongoing enforcement matters.

The qualification requirements reflect the seriousness of the role. Enforcement agents must hold either a law degree with at least three years' relevant experience, or a master's in law with at least two years' experience. They must have clean records (no convictions for felonies or crimes of moral turpitude) and must pass a court-approved training programme. Before any agent commences work, their appointment must be vetted by the Execution Department to confirm they meet all requirements, though the courts retain discretion to waive the experience thresholds where circumstances warrant.

Ongoing oversight is built into the framework. Licensed firms must submit periodic reports to the Execution Department detailing the files they have handled, the actions taken, amounts collected and disbursed, any obstacles encountered, and the status of seized assets. The Execution Department retains full inspection powers and it can review records, call in agents for questioning, and prepare reports on any procedural failures or breaches. Complaints from affected parties are investigated, and the Department can recommend corrective measures or escalate matters to the competent judge.

Effects going forward

This reform is likely to shape enforcement practice in several meaningful ways:

Enhanced efficiency - Specialist providers can streamline operational aspects of execution, potentially reducing timelines in complex matters.

Greater sophistication in enforcement - Private enforcement firms may bring investigative, financial, and logistical expertise that complements judicial processes.

Stronger commercial confidence - Reliable enforcement mechanisms are fundamental to attracting international investment and dispute resolution work.

Development of the enforcement ecosystem - We may see the development of a professional enforcement services sector supporting litigation, arbitration, and restructuring activity.

A forward-looking shift

The decision offers several clear positives. Operational flexibility can improve recovery timelines for successful litigants. Courts can focus on adjudication while specialised providers support execution logistics. Many other jurisdictions, such as France and parts of the US already incorporate private enforcement support mechanisms, and this reform aligns Dubai with this practice. Effective enforcement strengthens the Emirate's standing as a regional legal hub. Ultimately, Decision No. 2 of 2026 signals a pragmatic development rather than a radical departure. Judicial authority remains intact, but the operational model is adapting to meet the needs of a fast-moving commercial environment.

For businesses, investors, and legal practitioners, the message is positive: Dubai continues to refine not only how disputes are resolved, but how judgments are turned into real-world outcomes.