The Court of Appeal has affirmed the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction to grant freezing orders in aid of foreign proceedings, clarifying that the enactment of the DIFC Courts Law No (2) of 2025 does not curtail the court's established power to protect its jurisdiction to recognize and enforce foreign judgments.
What was the nature of the dispute between Trafigura PTE and Mr Prateek Gupta and what was the value of the assets at stake?
The litigation arises from a massive commodities trading dispute involving allegations of deceit, conspiracy, inducing breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. The Claimants, Trafigura PTE LTD and Trafigura India PTV LTD, initiated proceedings against Mr Prateek Gupta and Mrs Ginni Gupta, seeking to recover losses estimated at USD 650 million. The core of the dispute centers on the alleged dissipation of assets by the Respondents, which prompted the Claimants to seek urgent interim relief to prevent the frustration of potential future enforcement actions.
As noted in the court's summary of the procedural history:
Also on 11 April 2025, the Appellants filed an application under Part 25 of the DIFC Rules dealing with Interim Remedies and Security for Costs. It was an application for a freezing order under RDC 25.1(6) and a disclosure order under RDC 25.1(7).
The Claimants argued that without a freezing order, any eventual judgment obtained in foreign proceedings—which they intend to enforce within the DIFC—would be rendered hollow by the Respondents' conduct. The stakes involve the preservation of assets potentially exceeding half a billion dollars, making the availability of interim measures a critical component of the Claimants' recovery strategy.
Which judges presided over the Trafigura v Gupta appeal in the DIFC Court of Appeal?
The appeal was heard by a distinguished bench of the DIFC Court of Appeal, comprising H.E. Chief Justice Wayne Martin, H.E. Justice Robert French, and H.E. Justice Sir Peter Gross. The hearing took place on 2 September 2025, with the final judgment delivered on 22 September 2025.
What legal arguments did Mr Tom Montagu Smith KC and Mr Alistair Webster KC advance regarding the DIFC's jurisdiction?
Mr Tom Montagu Smith KC, representing the Appellants (Trafigura), argued that the DIFC Courts possess an inherent and statutory jurisdiction to grant interim relief, such as freezing orders, to support foreign proceedings that may ultimately lead to a judgment enforceable in the DIFC. He contended that this jurisdiction is essential to prevent the court's future enforcement powers from being "thwarted" by the dissipation of assets. He relied heavily on the precedent set in Carmon, asserting that the enactment of the new DIFC Courts Law No (2) of 2025 did not intend to strip the court of these vital protective powers.
Conversely, Mr Alistair Webster KC and Mr Faisal Osman, representing the Respondents, argued that the jurisdictional landscape had shifted with the introduction of the 2025 legislation. They contended that the CFI was correct in its initial dismissal, suggesting that the new statutory framework did not explicitly grant the court the power to act as a "conduit" for interim relief in support of foreign litigation where no substantive claim was currently before the DIFC Court itself. They sought to distinguish the present case from Carmon, arguing that the court should adopt a more restrictive interpretation of its jurisdictional reach under the new legislative regime.
What was the precise doctrinal question the Court of Appeal had to answer regarding the DIFC Courts' jurisdiction under the 2025 Court Law?
The central doctrinal issue was whether the DIFC Courts retain the jurisdiction and power to issue freezing orders in aid of proceedings in a foreign court that may yield a judgment enforceable in the DIFC, notwithstanding the enactment of the DIFC Courts Law No (2) of 2025. The court had to determine if the new legislation implicitly repealed or restricted the incidental powers previously recognized in Carmon to grant interim remedies under Part 25 of the RDC.
As framed by the court:
This appeal raises anew the question whether this Court has jurisdiction and power to issue freezing orders in aid of proceedings in a foreign court which may yield a judgment enforceable in the Dubai International Financial Centre (“DIFC”) and the Emirate of Dubai.
The court was tasked with deciding if the "conduit jurisdiction" remains a robust feature of the DIFC legal system or if the legislative changes necessitated a retreat from the principles established in DNB Bank ASA and Carmon.
How did the Court of Appeal apply the doctrine of incidental powers to justify the freezing order?
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the power to grant interim relief is not a standalone head of jurisdiction but an incidental power that attaches to the court's primary jurisdiction to recognize and enforce foreign judgments. By referencing the test established in Carmon, the court emphasized that the DIFC Courts must be able to prevent their own jurisdiction from being thwarted. If a party is permitted to dissipate assets before a foreign judgment is brought to the DIFC for enforcement, the court's statutory mandate to enforce such judgments would be rendered ineffective.
The court reiterated the scope of its powers:
This Court stated at [202] of the decision that: “[The DIFC CFI] has power to grant interim remedies under Pt 25 of the RDC, including freezing orders which extend to freezing orders restraining a party from dealing with any assets whether located within the jurisdiction or not – RDC 25.1(6).
The judges concluded that the 2025 Court Law did not extinguish these powers. Instead, they interpreted the legislative framework as continuing to support the court’s ability to issue injunctions and interlocutory orders to ensure that the eventual enforcement process remains meaningful and effective.
Which specific statutes and rules were applied by the Court of Appeal in its analysis?
The court relied on a combination of primary legislation and procedural rules. Key statutes included Article 5(A)(1)(e) of the DIFC Court Law No 12 of 2004 (the Judicial Authority Law), which confers jurisdiction over claims recognized by DIFC Laws and Regulations, and Article 24 of the DIFC Courts Law No 10 of 2004, which provides the basis for the ratification of foreign judgments. The court also considered the implications of the new DIFC Courts Law No (2) of 2025.
Procedurally, the court applied the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC), specifically:
- RDC 25.1(6): Regarding the power to grant freezing orders.
- RDC 25.3: Regarding the court's ability to grant remedies even where no final remedy has been claimed in the DIFC.
- RDC 25.8 and 25.10: Concerning the requirements for applications made without notice.
How did the Court of Appeal utilize precedents like Carmon and DNB Bank ASA?
The Court of Appeal utilized Carmon Reestrutura v Antonio Jao Catete Lopes Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003 as the foundational authority for the "conduit jurisdiction" doctrine. The court reaffirmed that Carmon correctly identified that the power to grant interim remedies is an incidental power of the CFI. Furthermore, the court looked to DNB Bank ASA v Gulf Eyadah Corporation [2015] DIFC CA 007 to reinforce the principle that the DIFC Courts have a clear statutory mandate to hear claims for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, which inherently includes the power to protect the assets subject to such enforcement.
The court also referenced the English case TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra [1992] 1 WLR 231 to support the principle that freezing orders can be directed at assets to ensure the efficacy of a court's ultimate judgment.
What was the final outcome of the appeal and what orders were made regarding the freezing injunction?
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, effectively reversing the CFI's decision to dismiss the application. The freezing orders originally made on 26 April 2025 were continued. The court remitted the matter of the variation of these orders—to account for the appellate outcome and any fresh undertakings required by the Appellants—back to the DIFC Court of First Instance. Additionally, the Respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the adjourned appeal hearing on Ground 1, with the question of other outstanding costs also remitted to the CFI.
How does this decision impact future practice for litigants seeking interim relief in the DIFC?
This judgment provides significant certainty for practitioners, confirming that the DIFC Courts remain a viable forum for obtaining interim relief in support of foreign proceedings, regardless of the 2025 legislative updates. Litigants can continue to rely on the "conduit jurisdiction" to protect assets from dissipation while foreign litigation is ongoing. Practitioners must, however, remain diligent in complying with the strict requirements of RDC 25.10 when applying for freezing orders without notice, ensuring that the evidence in support clearly justifies the lack of notice.
Where can I read the full judgment in Trafigura PTE LTD v Mr Prateek Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001?
The full judgment is available on the official DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/court-appeal/1-trafigura-pte-ltd-2-trafigura-india-ptv-ltd-v-1-mr-prateek-gupta-2-mrs-gupta-2025-difc-ca-001.
A copy is also available via the CDN: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/court-appeal/DIFC_COA_1_Trafigura_PTE_LTD_2_Trafigura_India_PTV_LTD_v_1_Mr_Prateek_Gupta_2_Mrs_20250922.txt
Cases referred to in this judgment:
| Case | Citation | How used |
|---|---|---|
| Carmon Reestrutura v Antonio Jao Catete Lopes Cuenda | [2024] DIFC CA 003 | Primary authority for conduit jurisdiction and incidental powers. |
| DNB Bank ASA v Gulf Eyadah Corporation | [2015] DIFC CA 007 | Established jurisdiction for recognition of foreign judgments. |
| TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra | [1992] 1 WLR 231 | English authority on freezing orders against assets. |
Legislation referenced:
- DIFC Court Law No 12 of 2004 (Judicial Authority Law), Article 5(A)(1)(e)
- DIFC Courts Law No 10 of 2004, Article 24
- DIFC Courts Law No (2) of 2025
- RDC 25.1(6)
- RDC 25.3
- RDC 25.8
- RDC 25.10