Emergency Arbitrators UAE: Asset Freezes & Security for Costs

Arbitration can take months or years to reach a final award, but the commercial risk may arise immediately. A respondent may begin moving assets. A shareholder may attempt to transfer disputed shares. A contractor may call or dissipate project funds. Evidence may be destroyed. A claimant with no visible assets may pursue a large claim while exposing the respondent to substantial unrecoverable legal costs.

Modern UAE arbitration law therefore provides several forms of protection before the final award. The available tools include emergency arbitrators, tribunal-ordered interim measures, court-ordered precautionary relief, asset-preservation or freezing measures, and security for costs. They overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

For arbitrations seated in the UAE outside the financial free zones, the principal statutory framework is Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 Concerning Arbitration, as amended. Institutional cases may also be governed by rules such as the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022. Arbitrations seated in the Dubai International Financial Centre and Abu Dhabi Global Market operate under their own arbitration laws and court procedures.

The strategic question is not simply whether interim relief is available. It is: who can grant the particular remedy, how quickly can it be obtained, whom will it bind, and how will it be enforced?

Emergency arbitration fills the gap before the tribunal exists

An ordinary arbitral tribunal cannot act until it has been constituted. That can create a dangerous gap between the filing of the arbitration and the appointment of the tribunal.

Emergency-arbitrator procedures are designed to fill that gap. They allow a party to seek urgent interim protection from a temporary arbitrator before the full tribunal is in place.

Under the DIAC Arbitration Rules 2022, a party requiring emergency interim relief may apply concurrently with or after filing the Request for Arbitration, provided the ordinary tribunal has not yet been constituted.

The procedure is deliberately fast. If the DIAC Arbitration Court is prima facie satisfied that emergency proceedings should be allowed, DIAC seeks to appoint the Emergency Arbitrator within one day after receiving a compliant application and the required fee.

An emergency application should identify the actual emergency

Urgency should be demonstrated, not merely asserted.

A strong application normally explains:

the asset, evidence, contractual right or status quo that is threatened;
what is likely to happen before the ordinary tribunal can act;
why damages later would not adequately repair the harm;
the connection between the requested relief and the arbitration claim;
the legal and factual basis for the relief;
why the respondent will not suffer disproportionate prejudice; and
how the requested order can operate in practice.

An application that simply says the dispute is important or the claim is large is unlikely to explain why emergency intervention is necessary.

DIAC gives the Emergency Arbitrator the interim-measure toolbox

Appendix II of the DIAC Rules allows interim measures including orders designed to:

maintain or restore the status quo;
prevent current or imminent harm;
prevent prejudice to the arbitral process;
preserve assets from which a later award may be satisfied;
preserve relevant and material evidence; and
provide or procure security for the costs of the arbitration.

For DIAC purposes, references to the Tribunal in the interim-measures provisions also extend to an Emergency Arbitrator.

This is significant because the same emergency mechanism can potentially address both asset-dissipation risk and the risk that a claimant will be unable to satisfy a later costs award.

The usual interim-relief test is demanding

For important categories of DIAC interim relief, including status-quo protection, prevention of harm and preservation of assets, the applicant must satisfy the decision-maker that harm not adequately reparable by damages is likely if the measure is refused and that this harm substantially outweighs the harm likely to be caused to the opposing party if the measure is granted.

The applicant must also show a reasonable possibility of success on the merits. That preliminary assessment does not bind the tribunal when the merits are finally determined.

The test therefore requires more than a plausible claim. The applicant should demonstrate urgency, non-compensable or enforcement-related harm, proportionality and a real merits foundation.

Notice and without-notice relief require special care

Emergency applications are usually extremely time-sensitive, and an applicant may fear that giving notice will cause the respondent to move the very assets the application is trying to protect.

The DIAC Rules recognise that problem. An emergency application is ordinarily copied to the other parties, but the Rules contemplate a without-notice route where the applicant reasonably believes that notice may jeopardise the effectiveness of the relief and the procedural law applicable at the seat permits that type of application.

Without-notice relief should not be assumed to be available simply because the institutional rules mention it. The law of the seat, fairness requirements, the particular remedy and the later opportunity for the respondent to challenge the order all matter.

The Emergency Arbitrator moves quickly after appointment

Where the application proceeds on notice, the DIAC Emergency Arbitrator must establish a timetable as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than two business days after receiving the file.

The process can be conducted through written submissions, an in-person hearing, telephone, video conference or another appropriate method.

The Emergency Arbitrator can rule on jurisdiction for the purposes of the emergency proceeding and can issue emergency interim relief under Appendix II.

The Rules do not impose one universal fixed number of days for every emergency order. The Emergency Arbitrator is instead required to proceed as quickly as reasonably practicable, taking account of the relief requested and the procedural timetable.

The Emergency Arbitrator disappears when the full tribunal is constituted

The Emergency Arbitrator is temporary.

Once the ordinary tribunal is constituted, the Emergency Arbitrator's appointment is revoked and the emergency powers cease.

The full tribunal can then reconsider the situation and may modify, suspend or discharge interim protection in accordance with the applicable rules.

Parties should therefore avoid treating an emergency order as a substitute for the final arbitration. It is a bridge designed to preserve the position until the tribunal can take control.

Federal UAE law separately gives tribunals interim-measure powers

Article 21 of Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 gives an arbitral tribunal broad authority, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, to order interim or precautionary measures required by the nature of the dispute.

The statutory examples include:

preservation of evidence;
preservation or controlled disposition of goods forming part of the dispute;
preservation of assets and property from which a later award may be enforced;
maintenance or restoration of the status quo; and
orders requiring or restraining conduct to prevent imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process.

The tribunal may also require the party requesting an interim measure to provide sufficient security for the expenses associated with that measure.

Federal court support exists alongside arbitration

Article 18 of the Federal Arbitration Law gives the competent court jurisdiction over arbitration matters assigned to it by the Law and permits the court's president, at the request of a party or the tribunal, to order provisional or precautionary measures.

This matters because a tribunal and a court do not have identical coercive reach.

A tribunal's order binds the parties to the arbitration. A court can use public judicial authority and procedural enforcement mechanisms against assets and, where legally available, third parties such as garnishees or persons holding the respondent's assets.

An arbitral asset-preservation order is not always a bank freeze

The expression “asset freeze” is often used loosely.

In arbitration, at least two different types of relief should be distinguished:

An arbitral anti-dissipation or asset-preservation order directing a party not to sell, transfer or dissipate specified assets; and
A judicial precautionary attachment or freezing order using court authority to restrain dealing with assets and, where the procedural law permits, bind banks, custodians or other third parties.

The first can be powerful because breach can affect the arbitration and later costs consequences. But where the practical objective is to block a bank transfer, seize an account or prevent a third-party custodian from releasing assets, court intervention may be essential.

Why court relief may be preferable for dissipation risk

Court relief may be particularly important where:

the assets are held by a bank or third party;
the respondent may ignore an arbitral order;
the location of assets requires judicial attachment;
without-notice relief is necessary;
disclosure from third parties is required;
the tribunal has not yet been constituted and emergency arbitration is unavailable; or
coercive enforcement is needed immediately.

Seeking court protection is not, by itself, inconsistent with an agreement to arbitrate. Both the Federal Arbitration Law and the major UAE arbitration frameworks preserve court support for interim measures.

Enforcement of tribunal interim orders is a separate step

Article 21 of the Federal Arbitration Law contains a mechanism allowing a party benefiting from an interim order, with written authorisation from the arbitral tribunal, to request the competent court to enforce the tribunal's order or the relevant part of it.

This distinction is important: obtaining the arbitral order and obtaining coercive court enforcement are separate procedural events.

A party seeking urgent protection should therefore plan enforcement before filing the application. An order that cannot reach the relevant asset quickly may have limited practical value.

DIAC expressly preserves the right to seek judicial interim relief

The DIAC Rules provide that asking a judicial authority for interim measures, or seeking judicial enforcement of a tribunal's interim order, is not incompatible with the arbitration agreement and does not amount to waiver of arbitration.

This allows a coordinated strategy in which the applicant uses emergency arbitration for inter-party protection and the courts for coercive measures where necessary.

Security for costs protects against a different risk

Security for costs should not be confused with security for the underlying claim.

A freezing or asset-preservation measure protects the possibility of enforcing the substantive award. Security for costs protects a party against the risk that it may win the arbitration and obtain a costs award but be unable to recover those costs from the losing claimant or counterclaimant.

DIAC Appendix II expressly authorises an order requiring a party to provide or procure security for the costs of arbitration, including legal-representative fees and expenses and other party costs, in the amount and form determined by the Tribunal having regard to the circumstances.

Security for costs is not automatic against an offshore claimant

The fact that a claimant is foreign, uses a special-purpose vehicle or has limited visible assets can be relevant, but a security-for-costs application should be based on the actual risk and fairness of the case.

Common considerations can include:

the claimant's apparent financial position;
where assets are located;
difficulty enforcing a future costs award;
whether insolvency or restructuring risk is genuine;
whether the respondent contributed to the claimant's financial difficulty;
whether the application would improperly prevent a legitimate claim from being heard;
third-party funding where relevant to the applicable rules and facts;
the apparent strength of the claim and defence; and
the amount of security actually needed.

The purpose is protection against unrecoverable costs, not punishment for bringing arbitration.

Failure to provide DIAC security can stop the claim

The DIAC Rules state that a failure to comply with an order to provide or procure security for costs may result in the Tribunal staying the relevant claim or counterclaim.

This gives a security order real procedural force even before any court enforcement becomes necessary.

Security for an interim measure is different again

A tribunal may also require the applicant seeking an interim measure to provide security in connection with the measure itself.

This protects the respondent if the measure later proves to have been wrongly granted and causes loss.

DIAC expressly allows the Tribunal to require appropriate security from the applicant and allows costs and damages to be awarded where the tribunal later concludes that the preliminary order should not have been granted in the circumstances.

The Federal Arbitration Law similarly permits the tribunal to require sufficient security to cover expenses associated with interim or precautionary measures.

The DIFC has its own interim-measures framework

For a DIFC-seated arbitration, the DIFC Arbitration Law provides the tribunal with power to order interim measures unless the parties have expressly excluded that power.

Article 24 includes measures preserving assets from which a later award may be satisfied, maintaining the status quo, preventing imminent harm and preserving evidence.

The current law also permits the tribunal to require appropriate security in connection with an interim measure, including security for legal or other costs of another party by deposit, bank guarantee or another appropriate method.

The DIFC Courts separately have procedural mechanisms for interim measures and freezing orders under the Rules of the DIFC Courts.

DIFC freezing orders are judicial remedies with strict requirements

The DIFC Courts' standard freezing-order framework illustrates why judicial asset relief is different from a simple arbitral direction.

A freezing application can involve:

a judicial order restraining dealings with assets;
asset-disclosure obligations;
penal consequences for disobedience;
undertakings by the applicant; and
procedural safeguards for the respondent and affected third parties.

The DIFC Courts will not issue such relief merely because arbitration exists. Jurisdiction and the substantive requirements for a freezing order must both be established.

DIFC case law shows that jurisdiction comes first

In Orabelle v Orzenia in January 2026, the DIFC Court dismissed an urgent ex parte application for a worldwide freezing order and asset disclosure in support of a Paris-seated arbitration because the Court first had to be satisfied that it possessed jurisdiction and that the requirements for freezing relief were met.

The lesson is practical: urgency does not cure a jurisdictional defect.

The 2026 DIFC arbitration reform remains a proposal, not enacted law

In June 2026, DIFC launched a consultation on substantial amendments to its Arbitration Law. The proposed reforms include express emergency-arbitrator provisions, broader security-for-costs powers and clarified enforcement of emergency and interim measures.

As of 27 October 2026, the DIFC legal database continues to list those changes under the June 2026 consultation materials rather than as an enacted Arbitration Law amendment.

Parties should therefore distinguish the current law from proposed reforms when drafting or litigating a DIFC arbitration clause.

ADGM also provides a modern interim-measures framework

ADGM is a separate arbitration seat governed by the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015.

The Regulations are based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and define the arbitral tribunal to include an emergency arbitrator appointed under the arbitration rules agreed by the parties.

The tribunal may order measures to maintain or restore the status quo, prevent harm, preserve assets from which an award may be satisfied and preserve evidence. It may also require appropriate security in connection with an interim measure.

ADGM Court support can extend beyond the arbitral parties

The ADGM arbitration framework gives the Court significant powers in support of arbitration, including urgent preservation of evidence or assets.

The court-support provisions can operate even where the arbitration seat is outside ADGM in the circumstances prescribed by the Regulations, and can address interim measures against non-parties where the statutory jurisdictional requirements are met.

This can be highly relevant when the practical target of the relief is a custodian, intermediary or asset holder rather than the contractual counterparty itself.

Emergency relief should be matched to the seat and institution

The same arbitration clause can produce very different emergency options depending on its drafting.

Question	Why it matters
Which institutional rules apply?	The rules determine whether an Emergency Arbitrator exists and what powers are available.
What is the seat?	The seat determines the arbitration law and court-supervision framework.
Where are the assets?	Asset location may determine which court can impose effective attachment or freezing relief.
Who holds the assets?	Third-party banks and custodians may require judicial rather than arbitral relief.
Is notice dangerous?	Without-notice relief depends on the governing rules and procedural law.
Has the tribunal been constituted?	Before constitution, an Emergency Arbitrator or court may be needed; afterwards the tribunal can ordinarily act.
What is the real risk?	Dissipation, evidence destruction, status-quo change and unrecoverable costs require different remedies.

Asset preservation should be supported by evidence of risk

A large claim does not itself prove that the respondent will dissipate assets.

Useful evidence can include:

recent transfers to affiliates;
asset sales outside ordinary business;
closure of accounts;
statements suggesting an intention to defeat enforcement;
movement of assets across jurisdictions;
unexplained restructuring;
rapid disposal of disputed property;
breach of contractual asset-preservation obligations; and
evidence that the respondent is concealing assets.

The applicant should separate a genuine enforcement risk from ordinary commercial restructuring or financial difficulty.

Asset disclosure can be as important as the freeze

A freezing measure can be ineffective if the applicant does not know what assets exist or where they are located.

Depending on the forum, relief may include disclosure identifying bank accounts, shares, receivables, real estate or other assets.

Disclosure obligations should be requested only to the extent needed for the protective purpose and should account for confidentiality and third-party rights.

Interim relief can create liability if wrongly obtained

Emergency measures are powerful because they interfere with rights before the merits have been finally determined.

That is why arbitral rules and court practice may require security, undertakings or expose the applicant to costs and damages if the relief later proves unjustified.

An applicant should therefore assess not only the chance of obtaining the order but also the potential consequences if the factual basis changes or the claim ultimately fails.

Draft the arbitration clause with emergency relief in mind

A transaction team can improve future protection by addressing emergency procedure when the contract is negotiated.

The clause and related contract can identify:

the arbitration institution and current rules;
the legal seat;
express preservation of rights to seek court interim measures;
service details for urgent notices;
confidentiality obligations;
asset-preservation covenants where commercially appropriate;
restrictions on transfers of disputed assets;
governing law;
language; and
the relationship between emergency relief and contractual cure periods.

A poorly drafted clause can waste the first days of a crisis on jurisdictional arguments.

A practical emergency-relief matrix

Risk	Potential remedy
Respondent may dissipate assets	Emergency anti-dissipation order and/or court precautionary attachment or freezing relief.
Shares or property may be transferred	Status-quo injunction or order restraining disposal.
Evidence may disappear	Evidence-preservation order and, where necessary, court assistance.
Contractual step will cause irreversible harm	Emergency order requiring or restraining specified conduct.
Claimant may not pay a future costs award	Security for costs under applicable institutional rules or law.
Interim relief itself may harm respondent	Security or undertaking from the applicant.
Third-party bank holds the asset	Judicial freezing/attachment relief may be required.
Tribunal is already constituted	Apply directly to the tribunal, while preserving court support where necessary.

Practical checklist before filing an emergency application

Read the arbitration clause. Confirm the institution, seat and applicable rules.
Identify the exact emergency. State what will happen if relief is not granted now.
Locate the assets or evidence. Relief should be designed around the actual enforcement target.
Choose arbitral, court or parallel relief. Do not assume one forum can bind everyone.
Prepare the merits record. Emergency relief still requires a credible underlying claim.
Prove urgency and proportionality. Explain why later damages are insufficient.
Assess notice risk. Determine whether without-notice relief is legally available and genuinely necessary.
Plan enforcement before filing. Know which court will be asked to enforce an arbitral order if compliance is refused.
Consider applicant security. Be prepared to provide security for an interim measure where ordered.
Separate asset security from costs security. They protect different risks.
Quantify security for costs realistically. Support the requested amount with a costs estimate.
Preserve confidentiality. Emergency filings often contain sensitive financial and asset information.
Prepare for the full tribunal. Emergency relief may be reconsidered after constitution.
Update the decision-maker. Material changes in the factual basis for relief should be disclosed where required.

Key takeaway

UAE arbitration offers meaningful protection before a final award, but the remedy must be matched to the risk.

Emergency arbitrators are designed for the gap before constitution of the ordinary tribunal. Under DIAC 2022, an Emergency Arbitrator can order the same broad categories of interim protection available to the tribunal, including preservation of assets and security for costs.

The Federal Arbitration Law separately gives tribunals broad interim-measure powers and preserves the role of UAE courts in granting provisional and precautionary measures. That court role is especially important where the applicant needs coercive relief against assets, banks or other third parties.

Asset preservation and security for costs should not be confused. A freeze protects the enforceability of the substantive award; security for costs protects the recoverability of arbitration costs. Security requested from the applicant for an interim measure serves a third purpose: protecting the respondent against loss caused by wrongly granted provisional relief.

DIFC and ADGM provide their own court-support and interim-measures regimes. In the DIFC, the 2026 proposals to expand emergency-arbitrator and security-for-costs provisions remain consultation proposals as of 27 October 2026 and should not be treated as enacted amendments.

HZ Legal can assist parties with DIAC and other UAE arbitrations, emergency-arbitrator applications, precautionary attachment and freezing strategies, enforcement of interim orders, security-for-costs applications, DIFC and ADGM court support, asset tracing and drafting arbitration clauses designed for urgent relief.

Official and authoritative sources

This article provides general legal and regulatory information only and does not constitute case-specific arbitration, litigation, asset-recovery or enforcement advice. Interim relief depends on the arbitration agreement, institutional rules, seat, court jurisdiction, asset location, urgency, notice requirements and evidence of actual risk. Court procedures and enforceability should be reviewed before an emergency application is filed.