The UAE has established itself as a leading global business hub, attracting a growing number of individuals and companies to live, work and invest in the region, attracted by the business friendly financial and regulatory environment. As a result, the country has become increasingly significant in the asset recovery landscape, with both the onshore UAE courts and those within the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) continuing to develop their jurisprudence to meet this evolving reality. This legal update examines some of the key recent developments.
Third Party Disclosure Orders - Norwich Pharmacal Orders
A Norwich Pharmacal Order (NPO) is a form of a third party disclosure order that compels a party which became unwittingly involved in a wrongdoing (such as a bank administering accounts used unlawfully to misappropriate funds) to hand over information needed to pursue wrongdoers.
The position in England and Wales. One of the key developments in recent years has been the judgment in Green v CT Group Holdings Limited [2023] EWHC 3168 (Comm). The English High Court confirmed the narrow scope of NPOs by refusing to grant them where the information was sought for the purpose of foreign proceedings (that being a question of fact). This was on the basis that assistance to foreign courts is governed exclusively by statutory cooperation regimes / letter of request procedure, in relation to both civil and criminal proceedings, whereby these courts can formally request information. This materially limits the circumstances where a NPO may be granted.
The DIFC position: a different approach. By comparison, in July 2024, the DIFC Court took a markedly more claimant-friendly stance. In a case brought by the Danish Tax Authority (SKAT) against FFA, a DIFC private bank, an NPO was granted in support of SKAT’s existing proceedings before the English courts and onshore UAE courts. FFA’s argument that the English law limitations should also apply in the DIFC was rejected on the basis that the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction is statutory, not derived from English common law, and its powers are broadly framed under local statute. Justice Cooke emphasised that:
“Where international fraud is concerned, it behoves this court to assist the courts of friendly foreign nations in doing justice and, for that purpose… to enable the foreign court to have before it the maximum information available for it to make its own determination.”
In a decision which has not received publicity, the ADGM Courts have also recently issued an “Information Order” which requires a global cryptocurrency exchange to disclose key transaction information relating to persons who sent or received the proceeds of a crypto asset fraud, following its failure to provide equivalent disclosure ordered in related English High Court proceedings.
Freezing Injunctions
A Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO) is an interim injunction restraining a party from disposing of or dealing with assets anywhere in the world, pending an upcoming judgment. It can cover all types of asset, can bind third parties, and in England (unlike NPOs) be granted in aid of foreign proceedings.
The DIFC and ADGM position. DIFC Courts similarly have the power to grant freezing orders under Article 15 of the DIFC Courts Law (Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025) and Part 25 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts. The ADGM Courts have an equivalent power under Section 41 of the ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence, Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulations 2015.
Onshore UAE: precautionary attachment. In contrast, the onshore UAE courts cannot grant freezing orders but may issue a ‘precautionary attachment’ order under Articles 247–251 of the UAE Civil Procedures Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022). Attachment is available where a debt is owed and there is evidence the debtor may flee the UAE or move their assets. Claimants must file their substantive claim within 8 days of the attachment order, otherwise it will be lifted. Enforcing a freezing order from a foreign court through the onshore courts remains harder, as evidence of reciprocity between the jurisdictions is required in the absence of an applicable treaty governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments. However, there is now evidence of reciprocity (in relation to final money judgments) between the UAE courts and English courts, established in Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri [2021] EWCA Civ 770.
DIFC freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings. Recent cases in the DIFC Courts have clarified that freezing orders can also be granted in aid of ongoing foreign proceedings. In Trafigura v Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the Article 15 power to grant freezing orders “within the DIFC” was dependent on there being assets within the jurisdiction.
However, conflicting first-instance decisions have introduced uncertainty. In Orabelle v Orzenia (ARB 007/2026, 30 January 2026), an ex parte WFO application in support of a contemplated Paris-seated arbitration was dismissed: the court held that the wording “within the DIFC” in Article 15(4) required assets within the DIFC, and that no such assets had been identified. Yet, in a later decision in Ovya v Oshie (ARB 023/2026, 24 April 2026), it was held that Trafigura remains authoritative, having been decided in a higher court. This was subsequently re-affirmed by the Court of Appeal itself in Orlagh v Orchid [2026] DIFC CA 001.
ADGM Freezing injunctions in support of foreign proceedings. The ADGM Courts are courts of statutory jurisdiction. Unlike the English courts, which has inherent powers alongside its statutory jurisdiction, the ADGM Courts may exercise jurisdiction only where it is conferred by statute. As confirmed in A17 v B17 and Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Shetty, a claimant must first identify a jurisdictional gateway under the ADGM Founding Law or the ADGM Courts Regulations – for example, where a party is established in the ADGM, the relevant transaction or incident occurred in the ADGM, or the parties have expressly opted into the ADGM Courts’ jurisdiction.
The ADGM CPR and Practice Directions expressly contemplate applications for freezing injunctions and other interim remedies in support of foreign proceedings, and such applications are suitable for the Fast Track. In A17 v B17, the ADGM Court issued its first WFO in support of the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, even though the arbitration itself was not connected to the ADGM. The respondent was, however, understood to have assets within the jurisdiction, providing the territorial connection for the relief.
Unlike the DIFC, the ADGM has not (at least to date) developed a line of authority equivalent to the DIFC decisions in Carmon, Trafigura, Orlagh v Orchid etc. which recognise a broad “conduit” jurisdiction to grant freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings irrespective of any connection with the DIFC. In the case of A8 v B8, the ADGM Court confirmed that it may recognise and enforce a non-ADGM arbitral award within the ADGM, even where the debtor has no identified assets there, but cannot be used as a conduit for the enforcement of that award outside the ADGM.
That said, the case law may be moving in that direction – in A22 and B22 v C22, the ADGM Court confirmed that it has jurisdiction to grant interim anti-suit injunctions where it is “just and convenient to do so.” The case concerned an ICC arbitration agreement with an Abu Dhabi seat, where the insurer had commenced proceedings in the onshore Abu Dhabi courts. The Court held that it had jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction pursuant to Article 13(7)(d) of the Founding Law and the ADGM Courts Regulations 2015, although it ultimately declined relief because the claimants had not met the evidentiary threshold. While the decision reflects a willingness to exercise the Court's interim powers in support of arbitration, it does not go so far as to establish a general jurisdiction to grant interim relief absent any connection to the ADGM.
Insolvency Law
On 31 October 2023, Federal Law No. 51 of 2023 Promulgating the Financial and Bankruptcy Law was published in the UAE Official Gazette, replacing the UAE’s prior bankruptcy regime. The new regime came into force on 1 May 2024, and, as under the prior law, excludes companies established in free zones such as the DIFC and ADGM, which have their own bankruptcy provisions. Key features of the new regime include:
- A new Bankruptcy Court with jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. All existing actions under the prior law transferred to this court on 1 May 2024. Its judgments are immediately enforceable without need for service; and challenges or stays are only possible if the Bankruptcy Court itself reverses or stays a decision, or if it is appealed to the Court of Appeal.
- A “Preventive Settlement” mechanism replacing the prior law’s “preventive composition” procedure, which had been considered difficult to use due to its strict conditions. This court-supervised process enables a debtor to continue operating its business whilst working to discharge its debts.
- A new Bankruptcy Department at the Bankruptcy Court, with broad powers including receiving and registering applications, serving notices, and liaising with creditors.
Uptake of the new regime has initially been slow whilst market participants assess its implications. However, the regime is continuing to mature, with larger professional firms increasingly being appointed to insolvency panels, bringing greater expertise and resources to the administration of insolvency proceedings.
Local court and enforcement file
Mutual enforceability. The onshore UAE courts offer a practical “enforcement file” process for enforcing judgments locally. Under Articles 31 and 32 of the DIFC Courts Law, DIFC judgments are automatically enforceable in the onshore UAE courts, and vice versa. The enforcing court is not entitled to review the merits of the case, or the substance of the original judgment. Recent decisions of the Conflict of Jurisdiction Tribunal (CJT) have, however, raised important questions regarding the territorial scope of the DIFC Courts’ enforcement jurisdiction, particularly where enforcement or ancillary relief is sought in respect of assets located outside of the DIFC.
The CJT was established by Decree No. 29 of 2024, replacing the former Joint Judicial Committee. Its powers include determining which judicial authority (i.e., onshore or DIFC) has jurisdiction in relation to a dispute; and determining which judgment is to be enforced where different courts have issued conflicting rulings between the same parties on the same subject matter.
In Almakhawi v Emirates NBD Bank PJSC (CJT Application No. 2 of 2026, 8 June 2026), the Tribunal found no qualifying conflict between a debtor’s onshore claim (seeking a declaration that he was not liable for a debt) and the bank’s separate DIFC asset-recovery claim concerning alleged dissipation of assets by a guarantor, worth approximately AED 322.5 million. The claims involved different causes of action, subject matter and sought different relief. A historical factual connection was not enough to establish a genuine conflict requiring “substantial identity between… cause, subject matter and relief sought.”
In Orlagh v Orchid, the DIFC Court of Appeal held that “within the DIFC” in Article 31 refers to the forum of enforcement, not the location of the debtor’s assets. Accordingly, the Court held that the DIFC Courts’ jurisdiction to recognise and enforce onshore UAE judgments and to examine a debtor’s assets under RDC Part 50, is not confined to assets physically located within the DIFC. Subsequent decisions of the CJT have, however, cast doubt on the practical scope of that jurisdiction, particularly in relation to execution against assets situated outside the DIFC.
Global Marketing Systems DMCC v Guang Zhou Salvage (CJT Application No. 1 of 2026, 20 April 2026) involved a positive conflict arising from enforcement of a Singapore (SCMA) arbitral award. The Tribunal split the matter by stage; recognition was allocated to the DIFC Courts, but enforcement was allocated to the onshore UAE courts for want of a DIFC “enforcement link”. The decision suggests that, notwithstanding the reasoning of the DIFC Court of Appeal in Orlagh, the CJT considers the DIFC Courts' execution jurisdiction to be confined to enforcement against assets or entities within the DIFC
More recently, in CJT Application No.4 of 2026, the CJT again emphasised that the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction to recognise judgments was distinct from their jurisdiction to execute them. Whilst recognition remained available, execution (including ancillary information-gathering measures under RDC Part 50) required a sufficient enforcement connection with the DIFC. Although the CJT reiterated that it was not reviewing the Court of Appeal’s decision in Orlagh, the practical effect is to narrow the circumstances in which the DIFC Courts may be used as an enforcement forum where assets are located elsewhere in Dubai.
Importantly, the CJT’s recent decisions do not suggest that the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction to grant interim relief in support of foreign proceedings or arbitrations has been curtailed.
For further information on any of the topics covered in this alert, please contact the authors or your usual CMS contact. CMS has offices across the Middle East (including in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman and Saudi Arabia), along with a leading tier 1 Civil Fraud and asset recovery team in London.
