The evidence must reflect the specific risk before the QFC Court will grant protective measures. Photo: typhoonski/iStock
16 Oct 2026, 12:39 pm
A recent ruling by the Qatar Financial Centre (QFC) Court provides important guidance for businesses seeking urgent court orders to prevent assets being moved or disposed of while an arbitration is ongoing.
The judgment makes clear that having an arguable claim and evidence that the other party is in financial difficulty will not, by themselves, justify such measures. A party seeking protection must provide evidence of the particular risk it is concerned about and show that the measures it is asking the court to impose are justified by that risk. If the application is made without first notifying the other party, particularly clear evidence and appropriate safeguards will be needed.
The underlying dispute arose from a construction subcontract governed by Qatari law which provided for ICC arbitration in Doha. The arbitration had begun, but the arbitral tribunal had not yet been appointed. The applicant therefore asked the QFC Court to impose a range of temporary measures, including restrictions on dealings with assets, disclosure of assets and banking information and preservation of records.
The court dismissed the application because there was insufficient evidence to justify the measures requested. In doing so, the court provided useful guidance on what a party needs to show when seeking this type of urgent protection, particularly the difference between evidence that a business is in financial difficulty and evidence that its assets are actually at risk of being moved or disposed of.
Qatar's Arbitration Law allows the court to grant temporary or precautionary measures before or during an arbitration, including where the arbitral tribunal is not yet able to act effectively. The QFC Court found that this requirement was satisfied because the arbitration had begun but the tribunal had not yet been appointed.
The available measures include preserving the existing position between the parties, preventing harm to the arbitration, protecting assets that might ultimately be needed to satisfy an arbitration award and preserving important evidence. However, the court stressed that these powers are not intended to give a party greater financial security than it originally contracted for or to put pressure on the other party in the underlying dispute.
The court applied principles it established in an earlier decision, Thales QFZ LLC v AlJaber Engineering Company W.L.L. in 2024. Broadly, a party seeking protection must show that it has an arguable underlying claim, that it is likely to suffer harm that cannot subsequently be adequately remedied if protection is refused, and that the overall balance favours granting the requested measures. These requirements operate together, so satisfying one will not compensate for failing to satisfy another.
When applying those principles, the court considered whether the applicant had provided enough evidence of the likely value of its claim, whether there was a real risk that assets would be moved or evidence lost, and whether the proposed orders were necessary and proportionate to those risks.
The court accepted that the applicant had a reasonable possibility of establishing some contractual entitlement. However, that was not enough on its own to justify the extensive measures it was seeking.
The applicant had not provided sufficient evidence of the approximate value of its claim, a real risk of assets being moved or evidence being lost, or harm that could not adequately be remedied later. Nor had it shown that the extensive measures requested were necessary and proportionate.
The decision therefore shows that demonstrating a credible claim is only the first step. A business seeking urgent protection must also provide evidence explaining why the particular measures it wants the court to impose are needed.
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the distinction the court drew between evidence that a company is in financial difficulty and evidence that it may move or deal with assets outside its ordinary business activities in order to frustrate enforcement of a future arbitration award.
The court found no sufficiently strong evidence of “a real risk of dissipation or other conduct capable of frustrating the arbitration”. Financial difficulties, or the possibility that an eventual award may go unpaid, were not enough.
Although the material before the court provided grounds for concern that the respondent might be experiencing financial difficulties and might have stopped performing its contractual obligations, it did not establish that it was being liquidated, distributing its assets or transferring or intending to transfer assets to a shareholder or affiliated company.
The court also made clear that financial difficulties, non-payment and stopping contractual work do not, without further evidence, allow a court to conclude that assets are going to be moved or hidden.
For businesses, that distinction is important. Evidence that another company may struggle to pay a future arbitration award is not necessarily evidence that it is taking steps to put assets beyond reach.
Where a party asks a court to protect assets up to a particular value, it must also provide enough evidence to justify that figure.
In this case, the court accepted that the applicant might ultimately establish some contractual entitlement but was not satisfied that the approximate value of that entitlement had been demonstrated. Simply identifying an amount as being in dispute in the ICC arbitration was not enough, without supporting information showing how that amount was made up.
This means that parties applying for asset protection should be prepared to support not only the need for protection, but also the amount they are asking the court to protect.
The court also considered whether the measures requested went further than was reasonably necessary.
The proposed measures would have affected all assets up to the amount claimed in the arbitration as well as potentially affecting banks, financial institutions, managers, shareholders and other third parties. Some of those parties were not involved in the proceedings, no particular affected bank or asset had been identified and the basis on which the orders would apply to each third party had not been explained.
The applicant had proposed safeguards, including a financial limit on the order and an exception allowing ordinary business expenditure. However, the court found that those safeguards could not make up for the lack of evidence supporting the amount to be protected or the risk the measures were intended to address.
The court also noted that the applicant had not offered to compensate the respondent for any losses caused by an order that was later found to have been wrongly granted, or addressed whether other financial protection should be provided.
The practical message is that the scope of an urgent order should match the risk demonstrated by the evidence. Safeguards can help make an order more proportionate, but they cannot compensate for an underlying lack of evidence.
This approach was also reflected in the applicant's request for the preservation of records.
The court found no evidence that any identified record was at risk of being destroyed, concealed or lost. It therefore concluded that the Arbitration Law could not be used to justify a general preservation order based on speculation alone.
This illustrates an important broader point from the judgment. The evidence must address the particular risk that the requested measure is intended to prevent. Evidence of financial difficulty does not necessarily show that assets are going to be moved, while general concerns about another party do not establish that documents or records are at risk of disappearing.
The applicant made its application without first notifying the respondent. The court said that this required additional caution. The applicant had to put before the court all important information, including points that did not support its case. The evidence also had to justify both the measures requested and the decision to proceed without notifying the other party.
The court said that an application of this kind required “especially clear evidence and careful safeguards”. Any initial order would ordinarily need arrangements for the matter to return promptly to court, an opportunity for the affected party to challenge the order and suitable protection against loss if the order later proved unjustified.
The court was not prepared to impose wide-ranging restrictions affecting the respondent and potentially numerous third parties on the basis of unverified assertions and documents that did not demonstrate a threatened disposal of assets.
The judgment therefore shows that seeking an order without first notifying the other party does not reduce the evidence required. If anything, the need for clear evidence and appropriate safeguards becomes particularly important when the court is being asked to impose significant restrictions before the affected party has had an opportunity to respond.
The judgment provides a useful checklist for businesses considering seeking urgent court protection in
support of an arbitration.
An applicant should be ready to show:
The judgment confirms that the QFC Court can grant temporary measures in support of arbitration where the relevant jurisdictional requirements are met. However, businesses seeking such measures must provide evidence of the specific risk they want the court to address. Financial difficulty, missed payments or a failure to continue performing a contract will not, by themselves, establish that assets are at risk of being moved or hidden.
For businesses considering an urgent application, the practical lesson is simple: match the evidence to the risk and match the requested protection to the evidence. The amount of any asset protection must be supported, the measures requested should go no further than necessary and, where the other party is not being notified in advance, the applicant must disclose all important matters and provide particularly clear evidence and careful safeguards.
Written by
OUT-LAW ANALYSIS
15 Oct 2026
