Few remedies concentrate the mind of a defendant like an order that touches their assets before trial. In the UAE, two legal traditions sit side by side: the civil-law precautionary attachment of the onshore courts, and the common-law freezing order and injunction of the DIFC and ADGM. Understanding where one ends and the other begins is the difference between securing a claim and merely alarming an opponent.
Two traditions, one federation
Onshore, the interim security remedy is precautionary attachment (al-hajz al-tahaffuzi), governed by the Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 on the Civil Procedure Code. Article 247 permits a creditor to attach a debtor's assets where there is reason to fear their loss — for instance where the debtor has no fixed residence in the State, is a flight risk, or is disposing of property. The attachment is asset-specific: it fixes on identified property (a bank account, a vehicle, real estate) and encumbers it in rem. It is not, in conception, an order directed at the person of the defendant.
The DIFC and ADGM, as common-law jurisdictions, work differently. Their signature remedy — the freezing order, historically the Mareva injunction — operates in personam. It does not seize assets; it commands the respondent, on pain of contempt, not to deal with them. That distinction is not academic. An in personam order can, in principle, reach assets anywhere in the world and can be policed through the court's contempt jurisdiction, whereas a civil-law attachment is territorial and bites only on the thing attached.
The freezing order test in the DIFC and ADGM
The threshold is materially the same in both free zones and tracks the established common-law formula. An applicant must show:
- a good arguable case on the merits — more than merely serious to be tried, a coherent and evidenced claim;
- a real risk of dissipation — an objective risk, not lightly inferred, that a future judgment will go unsatisfied because assets will be concealed, transferred or dissipated; and
- that it is just and convenient to grant the order in all the circumstances.
In the DIFC, interim relief is anchored in Part 25 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts. The reach of that jurisdiction was extended in Carmon v Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003, where the Court of Appeal confirmed a freestanding jurisdiction to grant a worldwide freezing order in support of foreign proceedings, even absent a connection between the DIFC and the parties or the underlying facts — grounding that power in the Judicial Authority Law No. 12 of 2004 and RDC 25.24. In the ADGM, the Court of First Instance derives its power from the ADGM Court Regulations, which permit an injunction wherever it appears just and convenient and expressly contemplate restraining the removal of assets from the ADGM or any other jurisdiction; in A17 v B17 [2025] ADGMCFI 0001 the court granted a worldwide freezing order in aid of enforcement.
A freezing order does not seize; it commands. Its force lies not in possession of the asset but in the contempt jurisdiction standing behind the respondent's compliance.
Worldwide reach, disclosure and the price of the order
A worldwide freezing order (WFO) extends beyond the free zone to assets held anywhere. In practice the courts remain alive to comity, and relief is frequently calibrated — with the enforcement bite often expected to concentrate on assets within reach. Crucially, a freezing order is almost always paired with an ancillary disclosure order compelling the respondent to identify the nature, value and location of their assets, worldwide where the order is a WFO. Without disclosure the freeze is a blindfolded remedy; disclosure gives it teeth.
That power comes at a price. The applicant must give a cross-undertaking in damages — a binding promise to compensate the respondent, and affected third parties such as banks, for loss caused if the order is later found to have been wrongly obtained. Where the applicant is foreign or of uncertain means, the court may require that undertaking to be fortified by security, a payment into court or a bank guarantee. A developing point, already visible in England, is that an applicant may itself be ordered to disclose its own assets so the value of its cross-undertaking can be tested.
Prohibitory, mandatory and status-quo injunctions
Freezing orders are one species of a broader genus. The DIFC and ADGM courts grant prohibitory injunctions (restraining an act — breaching a covenant, calling a guarantee, dealing with property) and, more exceptionally, mandatory injunctions (compelling a positive act, which the courts approach with greater caution given their intrusive effect). Interim injunctions serve to hold the ring — to preserve the status quo — until rights can be determined at trial, typically weighed on the familiar balance-of-convenience calculus where damages would not be an adequate remedy.
Anti-suit injunctions: protecting the bargain
The most jurisdictionally sensitive remedy is the anti-suit injunction — an order restraining a party from pursuing proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration or exclusive-jurisdiction agreement. Both free zones have accepted the jurisdiction: the DIFC Courts granted their first anti-suit injunction in 2020, and the ADGM has confirmed the power to restrain proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, including onshore proceedings, where equitable. The animating principle is pacta sunt servanda: the seat court protects the parties' contractual choice. But the remedy operates on the person, never directly on the foreign court, and comity demands restraint — an applicant must generally show a high probability that a binding arbitration agreement exists and is being breached, and, where relief against a court's own process is sought, strong reasons.
Enforcement, coordination and the discipline of candour
A practical fault line runs through any UAE freezing strategy: a DIFC or ADGM order binds the respondent in personam, but where the assets physically sit onshore, an applicant will often still need an onshore precautionary attachment to encumber the property itself. The two remedies are complementary rather than interchangeable, and sophisticated asset-recovery planning sequences them deliberately — the free-zone order to compel disclosure and conduct, the onshore attachment to lock down the res.
Because these orders are typically sought ex parte — the respondent gets no notice, lest warning precipitate the very dissipation feared — the applicant owes a heightened duty of full and frank disclosure. The court must be told the case against the order as well as for it. Material non-disclosure is not a technicality: it can lead to the order being discharged and to adverse costs, regardless of the merits. Onshore, the parallel discipline is the eight-day rule — a precautionary attachment lapses unless the substantive claim is filed within eight days — and the creditor's own undertaking to indemnify the debtor for a wrongful attachment. Overreach, in either system, is punished. The applicant who freezes too much, discloses too little, or moves without a genuine risk of dissipation may find the remedy turned against them.
Instruments referenced: UAE Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (Civil Procedure Code), including Articles 242 and 247; Rules of the DIFC Courts, Part 25 (including RDC 25.24); DIFC Judicial Authority Law No. 12 of 2004; Carmon v Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003; ADGM Court Regulations and Court Procedure Rules; A17 v B17 [2025] ADGMCFI 0001. This note is general information, not legal advice; the law and its application to specific facts should be confirmed with qualified counsel.