Global reach of DIFC courts confirmed in landmark ruling

The judgment issued by the DIFC Court of Appeal ends recent attempts in the jurisdiction to argue that the DIFC courts’ enforcement powers, specifically its power to examine a judgment debtor on their asset position, was limited to questions about assets only located within the DIFC itself. The implication is clear: when enforcing a judgment in the DIFC court it is possible to take steps to ascertain a judgment debtor’s asset position globally.

The position was clarified in a case involving the Danish Customs and Tax Administration (SKAT). Pinsent Masons acted for SKAT in the case.

The case

The DIFC Court of Appeal’s decision arose from efforts SKAT has taken to enforce an onshore Dubai Court of Cassation judgment issued in favour of it. Having had the judgment recognised in the DIFC, a so-called ‘Part 50 application’ was made in order to help facilitate execution of the judgment against assets.

Part 50 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) provides a powerful procedural mechanism enabling a judgment creditor to examine a judgment debtor, or its officers, as to its assets, means and any other information relevant to enforcement, and to compel the production of related documents. Its function is, therefore, facilitative rather than coercive. It is designed to assist in identifying avenues for enforcement rather than executing against assets directly.

This framework is supported by Law No. 2 of 2025 (the DIFC Courts Law), which reinforces the Court’s broad powers, including: the power to order individuals to appear and give evidence under oath (Article 24(G)), and; jurisdiction over claims seeking disclosure of assets or funds (Article 15(3)).

When read together, these provisions establish a robust legal foundation for wide-ranging investigative relief.

Crucially, in SKAT’s case, the DIFC Court of Appeal confirmed that the scope of Part 50 must be understood in light of the court’s enforcement jurisdiction under Article 31(4) of the DIFC Courts Law and, in particular, its prior decision in the case of Orlagh v Orchid, a very recent judgment which also directly addressed the scope of Part 50 examination orders. While Part 50 operates as a procedural mechanism in support of enforcement, the court’s reasoning focused on the proper construction of that jurisdiction and the nature of examination as a process conducted “inside the DIFC”.

In reaffirming the case law established in Orlagh v Orchid, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the phrase “inside the DIFC” in Article 31(4) refers to the place where enforcement processes are carried out, not to the location of assets being asked about, or the subject matter of the enforcement. This interpretation was central to rejecting any attempt to confine Part 50 examinations to questions relating only to DIFC-based assets.

The court further held that it would be conceptually and practically flawed to limit examination powers to assets within the DIFC. In one passage of its judgment, it said: “It would… be an absurd result that the jurisdiction and powers could only be exercised in relation to assets within the DIFC… It would mean that the existence of assets in the DIFC would be a condition of the enforcement jurisdiction.” The court also warned that such a limitation would create artificial and unworkable jurisdictional boundaries, “providing scope for endless jurisdictional gaming”.

As a result, the court confirmed that the jurisdiction conferred by Article 31(4), and the powers exercised in aid of it under Part 50, are not constrained by the location of assets to which the judgment might be enforced against. This establishes that Part 50 examinations may extend to a judgment debtor’s worldwide assets, provided the enforcement rules of the Court where those assets are located are satisfied.

At the same time, the court recognised an important limiting principle. While the scope of Part 50 is broad, it is not uncontrolled. The enforcement judge retains a discretion to ensure that examinations remain proportionate and focused. This ensures that the breadth of the power is balanced by procedural fairness and judicial control. To illustrate, it would likely be impermissible to demand a days-long examination where purely speculative questions on assets are put to the defendant or, perhaps, where the questions are have an ulterior purpose beyond investigating assets.

The bigger picture

The court’s reasoning reflects a strong emphasis on practical efficacy, which is line with the objectives of the DIFC courts as an internationally favourable forum for cross-border enforcement. Limiting Part 50 examinations to assets within the DIFC would significantly weaken enforcement by allowing judgment debtors to shield assets simply by holding them elsewhere.

Both this decision and the one in Orlagh v Orchid signal a clear and consistent judicial approach: while enforcement is formally conducted “inside the DIFC”, the court will not impose artificial territorial limits on the investigative tools necessary to make that enforcement effective.

Taken together, these developments firmly position the DIFC courts at the forefront of international enforcement practice, offering judgment creditors not just recognition, but meaningful, global reach.

Co-written by Suzan Shaban and Reem Sharif of Pinsent Masons.