Dubai International Financial Centre Courts Says It Can Grant Asset Freeze Orders After Foreign Arbitration Awards
The Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of First Instance has held that the DIFC Courts can grant freezing orders to help enforce foreign arbitral awards even after the arbitration proceedings have ended.
“The words 'current or future' do not limit the scope of the ancillary jurisdiction which is granted to the DIFC Courts in relation to arbitral proceedings,” H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC said while interpreting Article 15(4) of the DIFC Court Law.
The court said the phrase “current or future arbitral proceedings” in the law does not mean the DIFC Courts lose the power to grant interim relief once a final arbitral award has been passed.
The court continued a freezing order obtained by Hong Kong company Omanand against Ondrei in relation to a Russian arbitral award worth over USD 628 million but limited the order to assets within the DIFC and the UAE.
Rejecting the Defendant's objection to jurisdiction, the Court interpreted Article 15(4) broadly and relied on earlier Court of Appeal rulings in Trafigura v Gupta, Oran v Oaken, and Carmon Reestrutura.
“It would make no sense to have a power available to provide ancillary support in relation to an arbitration which was continuing (or had not even been commenced) but not in relation to one which had concluded,” the Court observed.
The dispute arose from a Final Arbitral Award dated December 16, 2025, issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The tribunal found Ondrei liable for more than RUB 50 billion under personal guarantees allegedly executed in connection with loan agreements involving Turkish company Onnjelo.
Ondrei denied signing the guarantees and alleged that the signatures and documents relied upon by Omanand were forged.
On the issue of dissipation of assets, the court reviewed authorities including Bocimar, Holyoake v Candy, VTB Capital v Nutritek, and Lakatamia Shipping, reiterating that freezing relief requires “solid evidence” of a real risk of unjustified dissipation.
The Court held that if the Defendant had in fact signed the guarantees, his subsequent denial of them supported an inference of dissipation risk.
“A Defendant who denies that he signed guarantees when he did in fact sign them is very likely to dissipate assets if given a chance,” the Court said.
At the same time, the court noted that there was no evidence of dissipation of assets outside the UAE during the lengthy period of the Russian arbitration proceedings.
“The justification for the urgent nature of the relief sought was the decision of the Dubai Court of Appeal,” the Court observed while limiting the freezing order geographically.
Accordingly, the Court varied the freezing order so that it applied only within the DIFC and the UAE, instead of worldwide.
The Court also allowed Omanand to replace a USD 5 million bank guarantee with a cash payment into the DIFC Courts escrow account as fortification for its cross-undertaking in damages.
“I consider this gives greater security than the provision of a guarantee,” the court held.