With the expansion of globalisation and the growing presence of multinational corporations operating and holding assets across multiple jurisdictions, cross-border disputes have become increasingly common. While obtaining a judgment against a debtor may be relatively straightforward, the more pressing question is what follows. In particular, it is crucial to determine whether the judgment debtor holds assets within the jurisdiction where the judgment was issued. If no such assets exist, the focus must shift to enforcing the judgment in a jurisdiction where the debtor’s assets are located.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE), as a leading global commercial hub, has emerged as a key forum for the enforcement of foreign judgments. What distinguishes the UAE is its multi-forum enforcement regime – foreign judgments may be enforced through the UAE Federal Courts, which operate under a civil law system, as well as through the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts and the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Courts, both of which are grounded in common law principles.
However, although enforcement in the UAE is well-established, it remains essential to comply with the specific procedural requirements of each forum. A clear understanding of these processes, and the potential challenges that may arise, is critical, as the approach to enforcement can vary significantly between jurisdictions within the UAE.
Statutory Framework of Enforcement in the UAE
The legal framework for enforcing foreign court judgments in the UAE varies across its different judicial systems, each operating under its own set of laws and procedures.
At the federal level, enforcement before the UAE Federal Courts is governed by Federal Decree-Law No. 42/2022 on the Promulgation of the Civil Procedure Law (the “Civil Procedure Law”), supplemented by any applicable international treaties to which the UAE is a party. These instruments collectively establish the conditions and mechanisms through which foreign judgments may be recognised and enforced.
Within the DIFC, the enforcement of foreign judgments is governed by Dubai Law No. 2/2025 (the “Dubai Courts Law”) and the Rules of the DIFC Courts (“RDC”). Together, these provide a distinct procedural and substantive framework aligned with international best practices.
Similarly, in the ADGM, enforcement is regulated under Abu Dhabi Law No. 4/2013 (the “ADGM Founding Law”), which defines the jurisdiction of the ADGM Courts. This is complemented by the ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence, Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulation 2015 (the “ADGM Court Regulations”), forming the ADGM’s self-contained legal regime on enforcement. The procedural steps are further detailed in the ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016 (“CPR”), with additional guidance provided in Practice Direction 10 on Enforcement.
Taken together, these frameworks reflect the UAE’s multi-jurisdictional legal landscape, where both civil law and common law systems coexist, offering multiple avenues for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment in the UAE Federal Courts
Process of Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the UAE Federal Courts
Article 222 of the Civil Procedure Law governs the enforcement of foreign judgments in the UAE. Pursuant to this provision, an application for enforcement may be submitted to the execution judge of the court having competent jurisdiction. Upon review, the execution judge may issue an enforcement order, provided that the conditions stipulated under the law of the foreign jurisdiction for enforcing UAE judgments are satisfied.
The execution judge is required to issue a decision within five (5) days from the date of submission of the application. Such an order remains subject to appeal in accordance with the prescribed procedural rules.
For a foreign judgment to be recognised and enforced, the following conditions must be met:
- Jurisdiction: UAE courts must not have exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. The foreign court that rendered the judgment must have exercised jurisdiction in accordance with its own applicable laws.
- Validity of Judgment: The judgment must have been issued by a competent court and duly ratified under the laws of the issuing jurisdiction.
- Due Process: The parties must have been properly summoned and represented in the proceedings.
- Finality (Res Judicata): The judgment must be final and binding, having acquired the force of res judicata under the law of the issuing court.
- No Conflict: The judgment must not conflict with any prior judgment issued by UAE courts and must not violate public order or morals in the UAE.
Two-Stage Enforcement Process
In practice, enforcement in the UAE generally proceeds in two distinct stages:
- Recognition (Ratification): UAE courts examine the foreign judgment to confirm its validity and recognise it as enforceable within the jurisdiction.
- Execution: Once recognised, enforcement measures are initiated through the execution court. This includes filing the necessary application and taking legal steps to enforce the judgment against the defendant’s assets.
At this stage, UAE authorities may coordinate with various governmental bodies, including the Central Bank, land departments, economic departments, and free zone authorities, to identify, trace, and attach assets belonging to the defendant.
Scope of Defendant’s Challenge
During enforcement proceedings, the defendant is not permitted to re-litigate the merits of the case. Instead, challenges are limited to procedural grounds, particularly whether the requirements under Article 222 have been satisfied.
Additionally, courts may require documentary evidence from the issuing jurisdiction confirming that the judgment is final and no longer subject to appeal.
Challenges in Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the UAE Federal Courts
Historically, the UAE Federal Courts have exercised caution in enforcing foreign judgments, particularly in assessing jurisdictional competence. A common ground for refusal has been the determination that the UAE Federal Courts held exclusive jurisdiction over the underlying dispute.
Accordingly, the UAE Federal Courts carefully examine whether the foreign court had proper jurisdiction under the principles of international jurisdiction recognised by its legal system.
Nevertheless, where these conditions are clearly met, UAE courts have increasingly demonstrated a willingness to enforce foreign judgments, even in the absence of a bilateral treaty, reflecting a broader trend toward facilitating cross-border dispute resolution and enforcement.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment in the DIFC Courts
Process of Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the DIFC Courts
Under Article 31 of the Dubai Courts Law, the Enforcement Judge in the DIFC Courts has the jurisdiction over the following matters with respect to enforcing any foreign judgments:
- Enforcement of judgments and judicial decisions issued by foreign or local courts, including the Dubai Courts, in the event that the enforcement shall fall onto any of the DIFC Bodies, DIFC Establishments, Licensed DIFC Establishments, or any other entity within the DIFC. [Article 31(2)]
- Enforcement of judgements and judicial decisions affixed with the executory formula issued by local or foreign courts, including the Dubai Courts, as well as interim and precautionary orders and decisions issued by local or foreign courts, including the Dubai Courts, and arbitral tribunals, inside the DIFC, and in accordance with the Rules of the Courts. [Article 31(4)]
The legal framework governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the DIFC is primarily set out in the RDC, particularly Part 45. A foreign judgment will generally be recognised and enforced if it is final and conclusive between the parties, for a definite sum of money, not a tax or penalty, and issued by a court which, from the DIFC conflict-of-laws perspective, had proper jurisdiction over the defendant. The defendant must have been present, have submitted to the foreign court, or have agreed to its jurisdiction.
Defences are narrowly confined to fraud, breach of UAE public policy, serious procedural unfairness or inconsistency with prior final judgments or exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration agreements.
If the DIFC Court is satisfied that the criteria are met and no defence is made out, the Enforcement Judge, pursuant to Article 31 of the Dubai Courts Law, issues an order recognising and enforcing the foreign judgment. Subsequently, the enforcement order is embodied in an Enforcement Writ under Article 30 of the Dubai Courts Law which is the instrument used for execution. Execution against assets in the DIFC follows the Court’s enforcement rules in the RDC, particularly Parts 46 – 49. Where assets are in onshore Dubai, Article 32 of the Dubai Courts Law allows the Enforcement Writ to be transmitted to the Dubai Courts Enforcement Judge, who is expected to execute it without revisiting the merits, provided the conditions under Article 32 are met.
Subsequently, the DIFC Courts have the authority to ratify judgments of recognised foreign courts. This allows them to function as a “conduit jurisdiction,” enabling foreign judgments to be recognised and enforced even where there is no geographic connection to the DIFC.
DIFC Courts as a “Conduit Jurisdiction”
A key feature of the DIFC enforcement regime is its potential use as a gateway into onshore Dubai. Under the Dubai Courts Law, judgments of the DIFC Courts can be recognised and enforced by the Dubai Courts, and vice versa. This creates a mechanism whereby a foreign judgment may first be ratified in the DIFC Courts and then effectively converted into a Dubai Court judgment for enforcement against assets located outside the DIFC.
The conduit model, however, generated jurisdictional tensions with the Dubai Courts. More recent decisions show a more calibrated balance under the Dubai Courts Law. In Ostin v Oleda (ENF 185/2025), the DIFC Court interpreted the new statutory scheme, in particular Article 31(4) of the Dubai Courts Law, as confining its compulsory enforcement powers to assets located within the DIFC, signalling a move away from an unrestricted conduit role while maintaining a strong commitment to recognising foreign judgments on established common law principles.
At the same time, interim relief cases such as Trafigura PTE Ltd & Ors v Prateek Gupta & Ors (CA 001/2025), confirm the DIFC Court’s willingness to grant wide-ranging freezing orders and receiverships in support of foreign proceedings, although no connection to the DIFC has been established.
Enforcement of Foreign Judgment in the ADGM Courts
The ADGM operates under a common law framework and maintains its own independent court system, which is designed to handle international commercial disputes. Its adoption of English common law principles, combined with proceedings conducted in English, makes it an attractive jurisdiction for cross-border litigation and enforcement. In practice, ADGM is particularly suitable where a dispute has a connection to Abu Dhabi or the ADGM free zone, where parties prefer an English-language forum, or where enforcement strategies involve coordination with onshore Abu Dhabi courts.
Legal Framework and Process of Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the ADGM Courts
At a foundational level, Section 13(17) of the ADGM Founding Law provides that, subject to applicable regulations, any judgment, decision, order or arbitral award rendered outside ADGM may be enforced within the jurisdiction upon application by the relevant party.
The procedural framework is further developed under Part 34 of the CPR, which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments issued by “Recognised Courts.” Rule 297(1)(c) of the CPR provides that a recognised court includes a recognised foreign court, while Rule 297(1)(d) clarifies that such recognition is to be determined in accordance with Section 171 of the ADGM Court Regulations. Section 171(1) introduces the principle of reciprocity as a central requirement, empowering the Chief Justice to designate foreign courts as recognised where there is sufficient assurance that ADGM judgments would receive substantially similar treatment in that foreign jurisdiction. This reflects a traditional common law approach grounded in comity and mutual recognition.
The definition of a “judgment” under Section 167(1)(e) of the ADGM Court Regulations is framed broadly and includes any judgment, decision or order given or made in civil proceedings by a recognised court. On its face, this expansive wording suggests that both monetary and non-monetary relief, such as injunctions or orders for specific performance, could fall within the scope of enforceable judgments. However, a closer reading of the enforcement provisions and procedural requirements introduces a degree of qualification.
Section 171(2) of the ADGM Court Regulations establishes a rebuttable presumption in favour of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments for the payment of a sum of money, provided that such judgments are final and conclusive, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and do not relate to taxes, fines or penalties. This provision reflects a clear legislative preference for the enforcement of monetary awards. In parallel, Section 177 refers to enforcement in respect of “any sum of money payable under, or for any other relief which is the subject of a judgment,” thereby leaving open the possibility that non-monetary relief may also be recognised in principle.
Notwithstanding this broader statutory language, the practical framework set out in Practice Direction 10 suggests a more restrictive application. The prescribed forms for enforcement proceedings, namely Form CFI 27 and the supporting evidence in Form CFI 15, require the applicant to confirm expressly that the judgment sought to be enforced is a money judgment. This procedural emphasis, coupled with the absence of judicial authority confirming the direct enforcement of non-monetary foreign judgments, indicates that the ADGM courts are more likely, in practice, to enforce monetary awards.
In light of this, while foreign money judgments are generally capable of direct recognition and enforcement within ADGM, non-monetary judgments, such as interim or permanent injunctions and orders for specific performance, are unlikely to be enforced directly. Instead, a party seeking to rely on such relief would typically be required to commence fresh proceedings before the ADGM courts, relying on the foreign judgment as persuasive evidence. In such cases, the ADGM court would consider the reasoning and outcome of the foreign decision, provided that jurisdiction can be independently established.
As with other common law jurisdictions, the ADGM courts retain discretion to refuse recognition and enforcement on established grounds. These include cases involving fraud, breaches of natural justice or procedural fairness, lack of jurisdiction on the part of the foreign court, or inconsistency with UAE public policy. These safeguards ensure that the enforcement regime aligns with international standards while remaining sensitive to the domestic legal framework.
A notable recent development further enhancing the enforcement landscape is the Memorandum of Understanding signed on 14 January 2025 between the ADGM and the Dubai Courts. This agreement removes the requirement for the Dubai Courts to re-examine the merits of the ADGM Court Judgments during enforcement proceedings, thereby streamlining cross-jurisdictional enforcement within the UAE. The development represents an important step towards judicial cooperation between offshore and onshore courts and is likely to improve efficiency and legal certainty.
In comparison with the DIFC, ADGM adopts a broadly similar approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. In both jurisdictions, judgments must be final and conclusive, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and may be challenged on limited grounds such as fraud or public policy. However, in both ADGM and DIFC, the practical emphasis remains firmly on the enforcement of foreign money judgments, with non-monetary relief generally requiring additional procedural steps.
Overall, although there has not been any judicial consideration of these provisions to date by ADGM Courts, ADGM offers an efficient legal framework for the enforcement of foreign judgments, particularly in relation to monetary awards. While the legislative provisions suggest a potentially broader scope, current practice indicates a cautious and structured approach, with non-monetary relief generally requiring fresh proceedings rather than direct enforcement.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the United Arab Emirates offers an increasingly pro-enforcement framework for the recognition and execution of foreign judgments, supported by its unique multi-forum legal system encompassing the Federal Courts, DIFC Courts, and ADGM Courts. While each jurisdiction operates under distinct legal principles, civil law at the federal level and common law within the DIFC and ADGM, they collectively provide complementary pathways for enforcement, enhancing the UAE’s attractiveness as a global dispute resolution hub.
However, successful enforcement is not automatic. It requires strict adherence to procedural requirements, careful selection of the forum, and a clear understanding of jurisdictional nuances, particularly regarding reciprocity, public policy considerations, and the distinction between monetary and non-monetary judgments. Ongoing legal developments, including enhanced cooperation between onshore and offshore courts, signal a continued shift toward greater efficiency and judicial alignment.
Ultimately, while challenges remain, the UAE’s evolving enforcement landscape reflects a strong commitment to facilitating cross-border dispute resolution, offering creditors practical and increasingly reliable mechanisms to enforce foreign judgments within the jurisdiction.