Civil Law and UAE Freezing Orders and Interim Injunction Strategy

1. Introduction

A freezing order is an interim judicial measure designed to prevent a defendant from disposing of, transferring, concealing, or diminishing the value of assets before a judgment can be enforced. An interim injunction is broader: it can require a party to stop doing something, or in appropriate circumstances require a party to take a particular action, while the underlying dispute is being determined.

In the UAE, the precise mechanism depends heavily on the forum. The DIFC Courts have developed a particularly detailed common-law-style framework for freezing injunctions, including domestic, worldwide and foreign-proceeding-support orders. DIFC Part 25 expressly recognises freezing orders and ancillary asset-information orders. (DIFC Courts)

This area is especially important in disputes involving:

fraud and misappropriation;

asset dissipation;

cryptocurrency and digital assets;

banking disputes;

shareholder disputes;

commercial fraud;

foreign litigation;

foreign judgments;

arbitration-related claims;

insolvency risk;

enforcement of judgments;

trusts and fiduciary relationships; and

cross-border asset structures.

The 2025 DIFC Court Law and subsequent appellate decisions have materially clarified the DIFC Courts' ability to grant interim measures in support of foreign proceedings. In particular, Carmon and Trafigura are important modern authorities. (DIFC Courts)

2. Meaning of a Freezing Order

A freezing order does not normally determine ownership of the assets and does not itself constitute a final judgment for damages.

Its principal purpose is preservation.

A simplified structure is:

Claim → Arguable Case → Risk of Dissipation → Freezing Order → Asset Preservation → Judgment → Enforcement

For example, if A claims that B fraudulently obtained USD 10 million and there is credible evidence that B is transferring the money through multiple bank accounts, A may seek an order preventing B from dealing with assets up to the relevant value.

The order may cover:

assets located in the DIFC;

assets elsewhere in Dubai;

UAE assets;

worldwide assets;

identified bank accounts;

traceable proceeds; and

in appropriate cases, disclosure concerning the location and value of assets.

The standard DIFC freezing-order form expressly contemplates both jurisdiction-limited and worldwide orders. (DIFC Courts)

3. Purpose of the Freezing Order

The underlying objective is preservation of the effectiveness of the eventual judgment.

It is therefore different from an ordinary damages claim.

Ordinary civil claim

Wrong → Liability → Judgment → Enforcement

Freezing-order strategy

Threat to assets → Interim protection → Litigation → Judgment → Enforcement

The applicant is essentially saying:

“If the defendant is permitted to deal freely with the assets until judgment, the eventual judgment may become practically worthless.”

This is why freezing relief is preventive rather than compensatory.

4. Freezing Order vs Interim Injunction

A freezing order is therefore one particular form of interim injunctive relief.

5. Legal Foundation in the DIFC

DIFC Part 25 provides for interim remedies.

The rules expressly recognise:

interim injunctions;

freezing orders;

orders requiring information about assets;

search orders;

production and inspection orders; and

interim payments. (DIFC Courts)

RDC 25.1(6), as discussed by the DIFC Court of Appeal, permits a freezing order restraining a party from:

removing assets from the jurisdiction; or

dealing with assets whether inside or outside the jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal in Carmon also recognised the availability of interim remedies where the substantive proceedings are taking place outside the DIFC. (DIFC Courts)

6. Essential Requirements for a Freezing Order

Although the precise application depends upon the circumstances, the modern DIFC cases demonstrate several central requirements.

A. Serious Issue / Good Arguable Case

The applicant normally needs to demonstrate a sufficiently strong underlying case.

The court is not normally conducting a full trial at the interim stage.

In Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others, the DIFC Digital Economy Court explained that the merits threshold for freezing relief can be expressed as a “good arguable case” or a “serious issue to be tried”. The court referred to the established formulation that the case must be more than barely capable of serious argument, without requiring the judge to conclude that the claimant has a better than 50% chance of success. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

The claimant must show a genuine, legally supportable claim rather than merely suspicion.

7. Risk of Dissipation

This is one of the most important elements.

The applicant must demonstrate a sufficient risk that the defendant will:

transfer assets;

conceal assets;

dissipate assets;

move assets outside the jurisdiction;

place assets beyond enforcement;

structure assets through related companies; or

otherwise frustrate enforcement.

The court does not necessarily require proof that dissipation has already occurred.

The question is whether the circumstances demonstrate a sufficient risk.

In Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & Others, the DIFC Court expressly considered the requirement of a sufficient risk of dissipation, including the respondent's previous conduct. (DIFC Courts)

8. Evidence Relevant to Dissipation

Courts may consider matters such as:

1. Previous asset transfers

Repeated transfers may demonstrate a risk.

2. Fraudulent conduct

Fraud may substantially strengthen the inference that assets could be concealed.

3. Unexplained movement of funds

Particularly relevant where the movement is inconsistent with ordinary business.

4. Offshore structures

Companies, trusts or accounts in several jurisdictions may create enforcement difficulties.

5. Previous non-compliance

Failure to comply with court orders can be important.

6. Attempts to conceal beneficial ownership

Nominee structures may be relevant.

7. Imminent disposal

A threatened sale or transfer may create urgency.

8. Financial circumstances

Evidence that a defendant lacks sufficient assets to satisfy a judgment can be relevant, although financial difficulty alone does not automatically establish dissipation.

9. Ex Parte / Without-Notice Freezing Orders

A freezing order can, in appropriate circumstances, be granted without notice to the defendant.

This is particularly important because giving advance notice may allow the defendant to transfer the very assets that the order is designed to protect.

The DIFC standard form expressly contemplates an order being made without notice and provides the respondent with a right to apply to vary or discharge it at the return hearing. (DIFC Courts)

However, the without-notice procedure carries substantial responsibilities for the applicant.

10. Duty of Full and Frank Disclosure

A claimant seeking an ex parte order must present the court with a fair picture of the relevant evidence.

This includes matters that may be adverse to the claimant's application.

The applicant should therefore disclose:

important evidence supporting the respondent;

material weaknesses in its case;

relevant procedural history;

previous applications;

alternative explanations;

known assets;

relevant orders from foreign courts; and

facts that could affect the proportionality of the order.

The reason is simple:

Without-notice relief gives the judge only one side of the case at the initial stage.

Consequently, the applicant's disclosure obligation becomes particularly important.

11. Undertaking as to Damages

A claimant seeking interim injunctive relief will ordinarily be required to give an undertaking as to damages.

This is a promise to compensate the respondent if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted and the respondent suffers compensable loss.

The court may also require security or fortification for that undertaking.

In Carmon Reestrutura v Cuenda, the DIFC Court continued the freezing order but required the claimant to provide USD 100,000 security for the undertaking as to damages. (DIFC Courts)

Importance

The undertaking balances two competing interests:

Protect the claimant's prospective judgment without unfairly exposing the defendant to uncompensated losses.

12. Proportionality and Exceptions

A freezing order is not normally intended to make the defendant unable to live or conduct legitimate activities.

Typical orders therefore contain exceptions concerning:

reasonable living expenses;

reasonable legal expenses;

ordinary business expenditure;

pre-existing obligations;

transactions permitted by the order.

For example, the Quortia Ltd v Frank Irrling order allowed certain dealings where the defendant retained assets above the protected threshold and permitted expenditure for living and legal expenses. (DIFC Courts)

This demonstrates that a freezing order is fundamentally an asset-preservation mechanism, not an asset-confiscation mechanism.

13. Value-Capped Freezing Orders

Freezing orders are generally directed toward preservation up to a specified value.

Suppose:

Claim = USD 20 million

Defendant's assets = USD 100 million

The court does not necessarily freeze all USD 100 million.

The order may instead preserve assets up to the amount necessary to protect the claim, subject to the particular circumstances and wording of the order.

This prevents the remedy from becoming unnecessarily oppressive.

14. Worldwide Freezing Orders

A worldwide freezing order can restrict dealings with assets:

inside the UAE;

outside the UAE;

in bank accounts;

through corporate structures; and

potentially through assets held indirectly.

The DIFC standard order contains a specific worldwide form. (DIFC Courts)

However, a worldwide order does not automatically mean that foreign courts and foreign banks are legally compelled to obey the DIFC order in every jurisdiction.

Recognition, local law and third-party obligations remain important.

The order therefore commonly contains provisions dealing with foreign branches of banks and compliance with local law. (DIFC Courts)

15. UAE-Wide Freezing Relief from the DIFC

One of the most significant developments concerns the ability of the DIFC Courts to issue freezing relief extending beyond the DIFC.

The issue was considered in Carmon and subsequently in Trafigura.

In Carmon Reestrutura v Cuenda, the DIFC Court of Appeal held that the DIFC Court possessed jurisdiction and power to grant freezing relief in appropriate circumstances to support foreign proceedings and protect prospective enforcement. (DIFC Courts)

The subsequent Trafigura decision considered the effect of the 2025 DIFC Court Law and confirmed the Court's jurisdiction to grant appropriate precautionary measures in the DIFC in aid of proceedings capable of resulting in a judgment enforceable through the DIFC. (DIFC Courts)

This is particularly significant for cross-border litigation.

16. Case Law

Case 1 — Carmon Reestrutura–Engenharia e Serviços Técnicos Especiais (SU) LDA v Antonio Joao Catete Lopes Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003

This is one of the most important modern authorities.

The claimant was pursuing proceedings connected with Hong Kong and sought a worldwide freezing order over assets held in the UAE.

The Court of Appeal considered:

jurisdiction;

interim remedies;

foreign proceedings;

worldwide freezing orders;

foreign judgment enforcement; and

the DIFC Court's statutory powers.

The Court concluded that the DIFC Courts had power to grant freezing relief in appropriate circumstances to prevent their enforcement jurisdiction from being defeated. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A freezing order may protect the effectiveness of a prospective foreign judgment capable of recognition and enforcement through the DIFC.

Case 2 — Trafigura Pte Ltd & Trafigura India Pvt Ltd v Prateek Gupta & Ginni Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001

This is a major post-2025 authority.

The claimants sought freezing and ancillary disclosure orders in connection with English proceedings.

The Court of Appeal ultimately allowed the appeal and continued the freezing orders originally made in April 2025. The case specifically considered the effect of the 2025 DIFC Court Law on the jurisdiction to grant freezing relief in support of foreign proceedings. (DIFC Courts)

The later CFI proceedings dealt with continuing and varying the freezing order and additional asset disclosure. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

The DIFC's modern statutory framework supports precautionary measures designed to prevent foreign proceedings and prospective enforcement from being frustrated by asset dissipation.

Case 3 — Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC & Others [2025] DIFC DEC 001

This is particularly important for digital assets and fintech disputes.

The dispute involved approximately USD 456 million and included:

a proprietary injunction; and

a worldwide freezing injunction.

The Court continued the injunctions, restraining the relevant defendant from dealing with the identified assets and other assets up to the specified value. (DIFC Courts)

The case also explained the merits threshold applicable to freezing relief.

Principle

Digital-asset disputes can generate conventional civil remedies, including proprietary and freezing injunctions.

Technology does not remove the need to satisfy traditional interim-remedy requirements.

Case 4 — Quortia Ltd v Frank Irrling [2025] DIFC CFI 117

The claimant sought a domestic freezing injunction concerning assets held in Dubai and elsewhere in the UAE in support of proceedings in Cyprus.

The order restrained the defendant from removing, disposing of, dealing with or diminishing the value of relevant UAE assets up to the protected amount, subject to specified exceptions.

The Court ultimately continued the injunction. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A DIFC freezing order may be used as a protective mechanism in support of foreign proceedings where the relevant jurisdictional and substantive requirements are satisfied.

Case 5 — Larmag Holding B.V. v First Abu Dhabi Bank PJSC & Others [2019] DIFC CFI 054

This is an important authority on:

freezing orders;

asset dissipation;

disclosure;

fraudulent conduct;

proprietary claims; and

post-judgment protection.

The Court considered the need for a sufficient risk of dissipation and recognised that the respondent's previous conduct could be relevant. (DIFC Courts)

After judgment, the Court continued freezing relief over assets up to a much larger judgment value. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

A freezing order may remain important even after judgment where there is a genuine enforcement risk.

Case 6 — Carmon Reestrutura v Antonio Joao Catete Lopes Cuenda [2023] DIFC CFI 051

At first instance, the DIFC Court granted a freezing order on an urgent, without-notice basis.

The claimant relied on alleged misappropriation and foreign proceedings and sought preservation of funds held in UAE bank accounts.

At the return hearing, the freezing order was continued and security was required for the claimant's undertaking as to damages. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Urgent ex parte relief can be justified where the evidence establishes a sufficient basis for immediate asset preservation, but continuing protection remains subject to judicial review and appropriate safeguards.

Case 7 — William Allan Jones, Coffee Planet LLC & Coffee Planet Roastery FZE v Robert Anthony Jones [2023] DIFC CFI 043

This case concerned an interim injunction and freezing order granted in June 2022 and subsequently discharged.

The procedural history demonstrates an important point: a freezing order is temporary and reviewable. It can be varied, continued or discharged depending upon the evidence and developments in the case. (DIFC Courts)

Principle

Obtaining an initial freezing order does not guarantee its continuation until trial.

Case 8 — Bocimar International N.V. v Emirates Trading Agency LLC [2015] DIFC CFI 008

This authority is particularly relevant to post-judgment freezing relief.

The principles discussed in later Larmag proceedings include the question whether, in all the circumstances, it is appropriate to grant a post-judgment freezing order.

The existence of an enforceable judgment is a major factor because the claimant already has a legal entitlement that must be protected.

Principle

The justification for a freezing order may become stronger after judgment where there is a genuine risk that the judgment will remain unsatisfied without protective relief.

17. Strategic Structure of a Freezing-Order Application

A well-structured application can be understood through the following sequence.

Step 1 — Identify the substantive claim

Determine precisely whether the claim is based on:

contract;

fraud;

breach of fiduciary duty;

unjust enrichment;

proprietary rights;

conversion;

negligence;

debt;

shareholder liability;

insolvency;

arbitration;

foreign judgment; or

another civil cause of action.

A freezing order is normally ancillary to a substantive legal claim.

Step 2 — Establish the merits threshold

Prepare evidence demonstrating a:

Good arguable case / serious issue to be tried.

Avoid presenting the application as though the court is being asked to decide the entire case.

Step 3 — Build the dissipation evidence

This is often the strategic centre of the application.

Evidence can include:

bank records;

property transfers;

corporate filings;

suspicious payments;

cryptocurrency transactions;

related-party transactions;

unexplained withdrawals;

previous asset transfers;

foreign proceedings;

contradictory financial statements;

evidence of concealment.

Step 4 — Identify the assets

Where possible, identify:

bank accounts;

real estate;

shares;

securities;

receivables;

cryptocurrency;

corporate interests;

beneficial interests;

vehicles;

valuable movable property.

A freezing order can be framed generally, but accurate asset intelligence significantly improves practical enforcement.

Step 5 — Determine geographical scope

Ask:

Where are the assets?

Possible targets include:

DIFC → Dubai → UAE → worldwide

The wider the requested order, the more important jurisdictional analysis becomes.

Step 6 — Decide whether to apply without notice

Without-notice relief may be appropriate where giving notice creates a realistic danger that assets will disappear.

But it increases the applicant's duty of disclosure and procedural responsibility.

Step 7 — Prepare the undertaking as to damages

The applicant must be prepared to accept responsibility for losses caused by an improperly granted injunction, subject to the terms of the undertaking.

Step 8 — Request ancillary disclosure

A freezing order becomes substantially more effective when accompanied by asset-information requirements.

The DIFC Rules expressly contemplate orders requiring information about the location and nature of relevant assets. (DIFC Courts)

Step 9 — Return hearing

The initial order is normally followed by a return hearing where the respondent can:

challenge jurisdiction;

challenge the merits;

challenge dissipation evidence;

seek discharge;

seek variation;

request release of funds;

challenge disclosure obligations; or

propose alternative security.

18. Interim Injunction Strategy Beyond Asset Freezing

Not every dispute requires a freezing order.

An applicant may instead require an injunction preventing:

A. Sale of property

Where disposal would defeat proprietary or contractual rights.

B. Transfer of shares

Particularly in shareholder disputes.

C. Misuse of confidential information

For example, disclosure of customer lists or trade secrets.

D. Destruction of evidence

A preservation/search order may be more appropriate.

E. Continued breach of contract

An injunction may prevent continuing contractual misconduct.

F. Misuse of intellectual property

Especially in technology and franchise disputes.

G. Disposition of digital assets

Where cryptocurrency or blockchain assets are involved.

19. Freezing Order and Proprietary Injunction — Important Difference

These remedies should not be confused.

Freezing injunction

Protects assets up to a specified value.

Proprietary injunction

Protects property claimed to belong to the claimant.

For example:

A claims that B stole USD 10 million belonging to A.

If the claimant establishes a sufficiently arguable proprietary claim, a proprietary injunction may target the identified funds or traceable proceeds.

A freezing order may operate more broadly to preserve B's assets up to USD 10 million.

Techteryx demonstrates the practical importance of using both forms of protection where the facts justify them. (DIFC Courts)

20. Freezing Orders and Fraudulent Conveyance

Freezing orders can interact with claims challenging asset transfers.

Suppose:

Debtor → Related company → Trust → Offshore account

The creditor may potentially pursue:

substantive debt claim;

fraudulent/non-enforceable disposition claim;

tracing or proprietary relief;

disclosure;

freezing injunction;

enforcement.

But a freezing order does not itself establish that the transfer was fraudulent.

That determination normally requires substantive adjudication.

21. Freezing Orders and Digital Assets

Digital assets present additional difficulties.

Assets may move:

Wallet A → Wallet B → Exchange → Wallet C → Stablecoin → Bank

A freezing strategy therefore needs to consider:

wallet addresses;

exchange accounts;

custodians;

beneficial ownership;

private keys;

blockchain records;

stablecoins;

conversion into fiat currency;

tracing;

third-party exchanges;

cross-border enforcement.

Techteryx is particularly significant because it demonstrates that the DIFC Digital Economy Court can deploy traditional interim remedies in a major digital-asset dispute. (DIFC Courts)

22. Freezing Orders and Foreign Litigation

This is now one of the most important UAE strategic applications.

Consider:

English proceedings
↓
Defendant owns UAE assets
↓
Risk of dissipation
↓
DIFC freezing application
↓
Protection of UAE assets
↓
Foreign judgment
↓
Recognition/enforcement

Carmon and Trafigura demonstrate the importance of this mechanism in modern cross-border litigation. (DIFC Courts)

23. Freezing Orders and Arbitration

A similar strategy can arise where the underlying dispute is subject to arbitration.

Potential sequence:

Arbitration agreement
↓
Arbitration commenced
↓
Asset dissipation risk
↓
Interim court protection
↓
Arbitral award
↓
Recognition/enforcement

The important question is not merely whether an arbitration exists, but whether the relevant court has jurisdiction to grant the requested interim protection and whether the relief is compatible with the arbitral process.

24. Procedural Fairness

Because freezing orders can be extremely intrusive, procedural fairness remains important.

A respondent may seek:

discharge;

variation;

narrower geographical scope;

reduction of the frozen amount;

permission for ordinary business expenditure;

release of legal expenses;

release of living expenses;

correction of disclosure obligations.

The Quortia proceedings illustrate how jurisdictional and discharge challenges can be brought after an urgent without-notice order. (DIFC Courts)

25. Common Grounds for Discharge

A respondent may challenge an injunction on grounds such as:

no good arguable case;

no sufficient risk of dissipation;

material non-disclosure;

misleading evidence;

excessive scope;

inadequate undertaking;

lack of jurisdiction;

procedural defects;

changed circumstances;

disproportionate interference;

alternative security being available; or

failure to comply with conditions of the order.

26. Common Applicant Mistakes

Mistake 1 — Treating suspicion as proof

Suspicion alone is generally insufficient.

Mistake 2 — Seeking too much

A request to freeze every asset can appear disproportionate.

Mistake 3 — Ignoring adverse evidence

This can be especially dangerous on an ex parte application.

Mistake 4 — Failing to identify the enforcement problem

The applicant should explain why ordinary litigation may not adequately protect the eventual judgment.

Mistake 5 — Confusing a freezing order with ownership

Freezing does not necessarily establish proprietary ownership.

Mistake 6 — Ignoring third-party rights

Banks, custodians, corporate entities and innocent third parties may have independent rights.

Mistake 7 — Forgetting foreign law

A worldwide order does not automatically override the law of another country.

27. Freezing Orders and the New UAE Civil Transactions Law

The Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025, effective from 1 June 2026, replaced the 1985 Civil Transactions Law.

Its substantive civil-liability provisions are relevant to the underlying claim for which interim protection is sought, including rules concerning:

harmful acts;

compensation;

causation;

loss;

mitigation and allocation of liability; and

limitation.

However, the procedural mechanics of freezing and interim orders should not simply be treated as substantive Civil Transactions Law rules. The relevant procedural legislation and the rules of the particular court remain critical.

This distinction is especially important when comparing:

UAE onshore courts vs DIFC Courts vs ADGM Courts vs arbitral tribunals.

28. Strategic Model

A useful examination formula is:

Freezing Order Strategy

Substantive Claim
↓
Good Arguable Case
↓
Risk of Dissipation
↓
Urgency
↓
Jurisdiction
↓
Appropriate Scope
↓
Full and Frank Disclosure
↓
Undertaking as to Damages
↓
Asset Disclosure
↓
Return Hearing
↓
Judgment / Award
↓
Enforcement

29. Key Legal Principles from the Cases

30. Conclusion

UAE freezing-order strategy is fundamentally about preserving the effectiveness of civil justice before the final judgment becomes enforceable.

The most important principles are:

A freezing order is an interim protective remedy, not a final determination of liability.

The claimant must establish a sufficiently strong underlying case.

A credible risk of asset dissipation is central.

Without-notice applications require especially careful full and frank disclosure.

An undertaking as to damages protects the respondent against wrongful interim restraint.

Orders should normally be proportionate to the value and nature of the claim.

Freezing orders can be accompanied by asset disclosure orders.

Proprietary injunctions and freezing orders perform different functions.

DIFC jurisprudence permits important forms of relief in support of foreign litigation and prospective foreign judgments.

Carmon, Trafigura, Techteryx, Quortia and Larmag are particularly significant modern authorities.

Digital assets do not fall outside conventional civil remedies merely because they are technologically different.

The correct strategy depends heavily on jurisdiction, asset location, underlying cause of action, foreign proceedings, urgency and enforcement prospects.

The central principle can therefore be expressed as:

A freezing order protects the future enforceability of a civil judgment by preventing the defendant from frustrating that judgment through asset dissipation, while interim injunctions more generally preserve the parties' legal position until the court can finally determine the dispute.