DIFC Courts will freeze and protect worldwide assets18 November 2025

We had thought that the jurisdiction had been firmly settled by the Court of Appeal Carmon decision, but new and different uncertainties have arisen following the recent introduction of the new law that governs the jurisdiction of the DIFC Courts: DIFC Courts Law (No. 2) of 2025 (the “New Law”).

In this briefing, we summarise the findings in the Carmon decision and look at three recent DIFC cases that have considered jurisdiction under the New Law for interim relief in support of foreign proceedings.

The good news is that the DIFC Courts maintain jurisdiction to freeze assets worldwide pending judgment in foreign proceedings even where there is no direct nexus to the DIFC. If you are interested to know the legal findings in the cases, read on.

Carmon decision

The DIFC Court of Appeal decision in Carmon¹ was decided under the Dubai Judicial Authority Law, No. 12 of 2004 and the DIFC Court Law No. 10 of 2004 (“Old Law”).

In Carmon, the Court of Appeal found that in an earlier decision in Sandra Holding,² the Court of Appeal had taken a wrong turn in adopting an unduly restrictive view of the powers of the DIFC Courts in deciding that it did not have jurisdiction to issue freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings.

The Old Law has been superseded by the New Law.

Nadil decision

In April 2025, a surprising decision was made by the DIFC Court of First Instance in Nadil,³ in relation to an application under the New Law for a UAE-wide freezing order against assets of the respondent in the UAE.

The judge dismissed the application on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction because:

1. Article 31 of the New Law requires an asset or something akin to an asset to exist within the DIFC at the time of enforcement. This was said to be distinct from the position under the Old Law that allowed for the DIFC to be used as a conduit jurisdiction; and
2. Articles 14 and 31 of the New Law require a direct link to the DIFC to be established for the court to hear a fresh claim or enforce a foreign judgment.

On appeal, the decision was overturned because the judge ought to have held that there was a sufficiently arguable case for jurisdiction and that the court had the power to grant the freezing order. The Court of Appeal went on to say that it would be surprising if the New Law had the effect of contracting the jurisdiction and powers of the court to grant such relief.

Trafigura decision

More recently in Trafigura,⁴ the Court of Appeal decided if the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to issue a UAE-wide freezing order and ancillary disclosure orders in support of proceedings brought by the applicant in the High Court of England and Wales.

At first instance, the judge again took a similar approach to that taken at first instance in Nadil and found that Articles 14 and 31 of the New Law require a direct link to the DIFC – whether through a DIFC contract, DIFC body or establishment or by consent or otherwise. On this basis, the judge concluded that the DIFC Courts did not have jurisdiction to grant the freezing order and ancillary relief.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and found that the DIFC Courts did have jurisdiction on the following basis:

1. the freezing order sought by Trafigura does not require a separate head of jurisdiction if sought in aid of an enforcement jurisdiction, which may be enlivened by the award or judgment in a foreign court whose judgments are recognised and enforced in the DIFC;
2. in Carmon, the court recognised that it has power to grant interim remedies, including freezing orders restraining a party from dealing with any assets whether located within the jurisdiction or not. Further, the court may grant such a remedy to prevent the court’s jurisdiction being thwarted. That includes its jurisdiction to recognise and enforce foreign judgments;
3. the jurisdiction may be thwarted if a party to a foreign proceeding seeks to dissipate assets in advance of an apprehended judgment which might be susceptible to recognition and enforcement in the DIFC;
4. nothing in the New Law affects the correctness of this proposition; and
5. in any event, Article 15(4) read with the opening words of Article 15 expressly confers the jurisdiction which authorises the granting of interim relief.