Interim and Emergency Relief in Arbitration: Key Takeaways from Dubai Arbitration Week 2026
10 November 2026
Obtaining urgent relief can be critical in commercial disputes, particularly where assets are at risk of dissipation. But an interim order may offer limited protection if it cannot be enforced where the relevant assets are held.
On 9 November 2026, ADG Legal hosted Interim and Emergency Relief: Practical Considerations and Strategic Challenges as part of Dubai Arbitration Week.
Moderated by ADG Legal’s Managing Partner, Mohammed Al Dahbashi, the panel brought together the firm’s David McCoy and Rahma Elkhashab alongside our colleagues and friends Leonora Riesenburg, Simon Davenport KC and Alexander Kelsall.
The discussion addressed the choice between arbitral tribunals and courts, the enforcement of freezing injunctions and the practical consequences of measures affecting business operations.
- Where should parties seek urgent relief?
Seeking relief through the tribunal, whether by procedural order or partial award, may preserve its control over the dispute. The party may then need to seek recognition and enforcement through the relevant courts to make that relief effective against the assets concerned.
Where a tribunal has already been constituted, one approach is to seek relief through a procedural order or partial award, then pursue recognition and enforcement through the relevant courts against the assets concerned. This allows the tribunal to retain control over the dispute.
Panellists expressed differing views on the preferable route. Some raised concerns that domestic courts may encounter difficulties recognising or enforcing arbitral orders that do not satisfy local procedural requirements. Others favoured applying directly to the courts where enforcement was the immediate concern.
Timing, the location of the assets and the available enforcement mechanisms should therefore inform the choice of forum from the outset.
- Freezing injunctions through the DIFC Courts
The panel examined the DIFC Courts’ role in granting freezing injunctions in support of foreign court proceedings or arbitration, including cases involving assets in onshore Dubai.
As discussed during the panel, an applicant must establish a good arguable case on the merits, demonstrate that the DIFC Courts have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, identify the relevant assets and show a real risk of dissipation.
The court must also be satisfied that granting the injunction is just and convenient. Applicants must comply with the duty of full and frank disclosure and provide an appropriate cross-undertaking in damages.
The panel also considered the mechanisms available for recognising and enforcing DIFC freezing injunctions through the Dubai Courts, particularly where the assets requiring protection are located outside the DIFC.
- A DIFC injunction does not automatically freeze onshore bank accounts
A DIFC freezing injunction does not, by itself, freeze an account held with an onshore Dubai bank.
The next step depends on where the assets are located, the terms of the injunction and the procedures available through the Dubai Courts.
In some cases, a separate application for precautionary attachment may be necessary. Further enquiries with the relevant bank may then be required to confirm what assets have actually been secured.
Obtaining the injunction and implementing it against onshore assets are separate considerations that must be addressed when planning the enforcement strategy.
- When an attachment disrupts business operations
An attachment affecting a company’s bank account can create immediate difficulties with paying salaries, suppliers and other ongoing expenses.
The first priority is to establish the precise scope of the order and identify any applicable deadlines.
Depending on the circumstances, the affected business may have grounds to ask the court to narrow the attachment or accept alternative security.
These options should be assessed promptly, particularly where restrictions on access to funds are disrupting essential payments.
The practical takeaway
The panel’s central message was that the choice of forum and the prospects of enforcement must be considered together.
Parties seeking urgent protection need to understand how an order can be implemented against the relevant assets. Businesses facing attachment must assess the restrictions imposed and the available options for responding to them.
The effectiveness of interim relief ultimately depends on what the order can achieve in practice.