A judgment is worth only as much as the assets left to satisfy it. Precautionary and interim measures exist to hold the position before and during proceedings — to stop a defendant dissipating, concealing or spiriting away the very property a claimant is fighting for. Deployed early and precisely, they are among the most powerful instruments in UAE litigation; deployed carelessly, they expose the applicant to real liability.
The function of holding the line
Litigation is slow; asset flight is fast. The purpose of interim relief is to freeze the factual position so that the merits process is not rendered academic by the time it concludes. The measures do not decide the dispute. They preserve a state of affairs — an asset, a piece of evidence, a defendant's presence in the jurisdiction — pending the substantive determination that will decide who is entitled to what.
Precautionary attachment (hajz tahaffuzi)
The principal onshore tool is precautionary attachment under the Civil Procedure Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022. Its centre of gravity is Article 247, which lets a creditor apply for a provisional seizure of the debtor's assets to secure a monetary claim. Two conditions must be understood together.
- A debt of a certain, established nature. The claim must rest on a debt that is due and quantifiable — supported by an official or ordinary document, or by a judgment or award not yet final or enforceable (for instance a first-instance judgment under appeal, or an arbitral award awaiting recognition). A speculative or contingent claim will not do; the sum must be specific and ascertainable.
- A risk to recovery. The applicant must show a genuine reason to fear that the asset will be lost — the debtor has no permanent residence in the UAE, is a flight risk, or is likely to conceal or remove property, or the security backing the debt is itself in jeopardy.
The application is typically made ex parte — without notice to the debtor, precisely because notice would defeat the purpose. It is heard summarily, often within a day or two, and the court may call for further documents, statements or affidavits and conduct a short investigation before granting the order. Certain assets are placed beyond reach: Article 242 shields, among others, the necessities of a person's dwelling and sustenance and the tools of their trade.
An attachment obtained in silence must be justified in the open within days, or it collapses of its own accord.
The order is not an end in itself. Because it is granted without hearing the other side, the applicant must follow up with a substantive claim within the short statutory period — eight days — failing which the attachment lapses. This is the discipline at the heart of the regime: the seizure is a bridge to the merits, not a substitute for them. If judgment is then obtained, the precautionary attachment can be converted into an executory (enforcement) attachment, carrying the seized assets through to satisfaction of the debt under the supervision of the execution judge — subject to the applicant pursuing enforcement within the applicable window once the judgment is final.
Other interim measures
Attachment is one instrument in a wider toolkit. Depending on the mischief to be prevented, an applicant may seek:
- Travel bans — a restraint on the debtor leaving the jurisdiction, frequently sought in parallel with an attachment where flight risk is the concern.
- Orders to preserve evidence — to secure documents or things whose loss would prejudice the trial.
- Appointment of a receiver or sequestrator — placing disputed or at-risk property in the hands of a neutral custodian pending resolution, typically where ownership or control is contested and the asset needs active management.
- Orders on petition — the summary, on-application route by which many of these urgent measures are obtained, decided by a judge on the papers with speed as the governing value.
The applicant's exposure
Speed and surprise come at a price. Because the debtor is not heard, the burden sits squarely on the applicant to present a genuine prima facie case and to disclose candidly. The court may, in its discretion, require the applicant to post security or a counter-guarantee — a bank guarantee or letter of indemnity — as the condition of granting relief, precisely so that a wrongly restrained defendant has a fund to look to. And an attachment that turns out to be unfounded or abusive can ground liability for wrongful attachment: the applicant who freezes assets without proper basis may answer in damages for the loss caused. Interim relief is therefore a calculated risk, not a free option.
The free-zone counterpart
The DIFC and ADGM common-law courts offer a parallel, and in some respects broader, armoury. Both can grant interim injunctions and freezing orders, including worldwide freezing orders modelled on the English Mareva jurisdiction, restraining a respondent from dealing with assets pending judgment or enforcement. The test tracks the English one: a good arguable case, assets within reach, and a real risk of dissipation, coupled with the applicant's duty of full and frank disclosure and the usual cross-undertaking in damages.
These courts also act in aid of arbitration. In ADGM, Section 31 of the Arbitration Regulations 2015 expressly permits applications for interim relief before or during an arbitration, and recent ADGM authority has confirmed jurisdiction to grant substantial worldwide freezing orders in support of arbitral proceedings and awards — even where the seat mechanics might otherwise point elsewhere. For a claimant weighing where to strike, the free-zone courts can be a decisive forum.
Strategy
Three principles govern. First, speed — the value of an attachment is inversely proportional to the notice the defendant receives, so the application should be ready to file the moment the risk is real. Second, evidence of dissipation risk — vague apprehension will not carry an ex parte order; contemporaneous proof of concealment, transfer or flight is what persuades a judge to act on one side's account alone. Third, coordination with the merits — the attachment and the substantive claim must be sequenced so the eight-day follow-up is met without strain, and so the seizure flows cleanly into enforcement once judgment is secured. The measure and the claim are a single campaign, not two.
Instruments referenced: UAE Civil Procedure Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022), including Articles 247 and 242; ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015, Section 31; and the interim-relief jurisdiction of the DIFC and ADGM Courts. This page is general information, not legal advice.