Understanding enforcement of foreign judgments in the UAE

Although the general principles governing recognition and enforcement are well‑established, recent developments - including bilaterial memoranda of understanding, expanding reciprocal arrangements, and innovative case law - have materially strengthened the UAE’s position as an enforcement‑friendly jurisdiction.

Among many other developments, recent pro-enforcement news include the onshore Dubai courts’ recognition of a foreign summary judgment and reinforcement that reciprocal treatment would suffice, even in the absence of a bilateral treaty.

The DIFC Courts continue to act as an international enforcement hub, with their position as a conduit jurisdiction now placed on a statutory footing through Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 (24-page / 702KB PDF) and recent case law confirming their jurisdiction to grant freezing orders and interim relief in support of foreign proceedings and judgments.

DIFC Courts as forum for enforcing judgments

The DIFC Courts occupy a central position in the UAE’s enforcement framework. The DIFC Courts are bound by international treaties ratified by the UAE and apply well‑developed principles of private international law when considering the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

A key feature of the DIFC regime is the seamless mutual enforcement mechanism between the DIFC Courts and the Dubai onshore courts, established under Dubai Law No. 2 of 2005. This framework allows judgments to be enforced directly between the two systems without re‑litigation of the merits, significantly simplifying execution against assets located in either jurisdiction.

Beyond domestic cooperation, the DIFC Courts benefit from the UAE’s participation in a number of multilateral enforcement treaties. These include the GCC Convention and the Riyadh Convention, both of which facilitate reciprocal enforcement of judgments among signatory Middle Eastern states. In addition, the UAE has entered into bilateral judicial cooperation agreements with countries such as China, India and France, further expanding the range of foreign judgments capable of recognition.

In parallel, the DIFC Courts have also pursued international judicial cooperation through reciprocal memoranda of understanding. These MOUs do not create binding treaty obligations, but they provide clear indications of mutual intent to recognise and enforce judgments, and they have played a key role in encouraging practical enforcement.

The DIFC Courts currently have reciprocal arrangements with courts in New York, Singapore, England and Wales, Hong Kong, New South Wales, Kenya, Kazakhstan, Korea, and the Shanghai courts. These treaty and MOU frameworks materially enhance enforceability by removing reciprocity uncertainty, constraining refusal grounds and facilitating procedural cooperation.

Although DIFC judicial MOUs are not legally binding, they play a significant practical role in streamlining enforcement and reducing jurisdictional friction.

Enforcement in the absence of a treaty

Importantly, the DIFC Courts’ ability to enforce foreign judgments is not limited to treaty situations. Even where no formal treaty or MOU exists, the DIFC Courts may recognise and enforce a foreign judgment provided certain common law criteria are satisfied. These include that the judgment must be final and conclusive, issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, and not obtained by fraud or in breach of natural justice.

In line with the common law rules on enforcement, enforcement of foreign judgments in the DIFC has been limited to money judgments, and judgments relating to taxes, fines, or penalties are not enforceable, as they would breach the Revenue Rule, which holds that revenue laws of one state have no force in another.

However, recent practice has demonstrated that the DIFC Courts’ powers are not confined strictly to conventional monetary relief. In a notable decision, the DIFC Courts have recognised and enforced a foreign liquidation order issued in respect of a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. That recognition facilitated information gathering and asset tracing within the jurisdiction.

This approach reflects the court’s willingness to deploy its enforcement jurisdiction pragmatically, particularly in aid of insolvency and cross‑border restructuring proceedings.

Enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the DIFC

The enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the UAE, including through the DIFC Courts, is underpinned by the UAE’s ratification of the New York Convention in August 2006 without reservation. The convention is directly applicable in the DIFC pursuant to Article 42 of the DIFC Arbitration Law, providing a robust and predictable framework for award enforcement.

In practice, the DIFC Courts have consistently adopted a pro‑enforcement approach, limiting refusals to the narrow grounds. For example, in the 2024 case of Nihan v Nicholas and Niaz, the courts stressed that recognition can be refused only if one of the statutory grounds under Article 44 of the DIFC Arbitration Law are met, to which the DIFC Courts apply a very high threshold.

This - combined with the DIFC’s conduit jurisdiction function - has made the DIFC a preferred forum for enforcing foreign judgments and awards, even where the underlying dispute has no substantive connection to the DIFC itself. Using the DIFC Courts as a conduit, to recognise the award in the DIFC first for onward recognition in the Dubai courts, can help parties circumvent delays and take enforcement steps against assets located onshore efficiently.

The ADGM Courts

The ADGM Courts have developed their own comprehensive regime for enforcing foreign judgments. As with the DIFC, the ADGM Courts have focused on building judicial cooperation domestically and internationally through memoranda of understanding.

In the UAE, the ADGM Courts have MOUs in place with the Abu Dhabi courts, the Ras Al Khaimah courts, and the Dubai courts. These arrangements allow for straightforward and reciprocal enforcement of judgments between the respective systems and significantly reduce procedural friction for judgment creditors.

Internationally, the ADGM Courts have entered into MOUs with courts in Hong Kong, New South Wales, Singapore, and England and Wales. These agreements reinforce the ADGM’s positioning as an international enforcement venue and reflect its alignment with common law enforcement standards.

Where no MOU, treaty or agreement exists, the ADGM Courts may still enforce foreign judgments subject to certain conditions. In such cases, the judgment must generally be a money judgment, and the applicant must demonstrate that the judgment originated from a ‘recognised court’, which, in the absence of a treaty, requires a determination of institutional reciprocity by the Chief Justice of the ADGM Courts. This element of reciprocity is a key distinction between the ADGM and DIFC enforcement regimes.

An important exception applies to judgments issued by UAE courts. Where a judgment originates from an onshore UAE court, including the Abu Dhabi courts, the ADGM Courts may enforce not only monetary judgments but also non‑monetary orders. Enforcement between the ADGM and Abu Dhabi courts is reciprocal, streamlined, and largely administrative, reinforcing the UAE’s broader policy of judicial integration.

Enforcement of arbitral awards in the ADGM

As with the DIFC, the ADGM Courts rely on the UAE’s ratification of the New York Convention for the enforcement of arbitral awards. The Convention applies directly pursuant to Article 60 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations.

The procedural pathway in the ADGM is notably efficient. Under Practice Direction 10(A), an applicant generally needs only to file a copy of the arbitral award together with a witness statement setting out the key particulars of the arbitration. This simplified process has contributed to the ADGM’s growing appeal as a jurisdiction for award enforcement, particularly in complex or cross‑border disputes.

Things to consider

For judgment creditors, enforcing a foreign judgment in the UAE creates meaningful strategic choices.

Selecting the appropriate forum, assessing whether there is a relevant treaty in place, and understanding the differing approaches of the DIFC and ADGM can significantly impact speed, cost and effectiveness of enforcement.

The growing body of case law and cooperative frameworks increasingly positions the UAE, through its financial free zone courts, as a jurisdiction capable of delivering real enforcement support on a global scale.

Co-written by Suzan Shaban of Pinsent Masons