OMANAND v ONDREI [2026] DIFC ARB 050 — Continuation of freezing orders in support of foreign arbitral awards (22 January 2026)

This order clarifies the scope of the DIFC Court’s ancillary jurisdiction to grant interim relief in aid of foreign arbitral awards, confirming that the "current or future" language in the 2025 Court Law does not restrict the court's power to protect assets post-award.

What is the underlying dispute between Omanand and Ondrei regarding the USD 628 million arbitral award?

The litigation concerns the enforcement of a massive financial liability arising from international arbitration proceedings. The Claimant, a Hong Kong-based entity, sought to secure assets following a successful outcome in a Russian-seated arbitration. The core of the dispute involves allegations of personal liability stemming from loan guarantees provided by the Defendant for a Turkish fuel and ore trading company.

The Claimant, which is a Hong Kong company, alleges that the Defendant is liable to it on the basis of a Final Arbitral Award dated 16 December 2025 issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation (the “Final Award”).

The stakes are exceptionally high, with the arbitral tribunal finding the Defendant liable for approximately USD 628,114,074.64. The Defendant has vehemently contested the validity of the underlying debt, asserting that the loan documents and his purported signatures were forged. This enforcement action represents the latest stage in a broader effort by the Claimant to prevent the dissipation of assets, following earlier precautionary measures taken in the Dubai onshore courts. Read the full judgment here.

Which judge presided over the Return Date hearing in ARB 050/2025?

The matter was heard by H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC in the Arbitration Division of the DIFC Court of First Instance. The Return Date hearing, which addressed the continuation of the freezing order and the Defendant’s set-aside application, took place on 9 January 2026, with the formal Order with Reasons issued on 22 January 2026.

What were the primary legal arguments advanced by Omanand and Ondrei regarding the freezing order?

The Claimant argued that the continuation of the freezing order was essential to prevent the dissipation of assets, citing the Defendant’s history of challenging enforcement and the significant value of the Final Award. They sought to fortify their position by offering a USD 5 million payment into the DIFC Courts Escrow account as security.

Conversely, the Defendant moved to set aside the freezing order, primarily alleging that the Claimant had failed to satisfy the duty of full and frank disclosure. The Defendant contended that there were nine specific instances where the Claimant breached this duty during the ex parte application process. Furthermore, the Defendant argued that the Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to grant such relief post-award, and that the worldwide nature of the original order was disproportionate.

What was the specific jurisdictional question the Court had to resolve regarding Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025?

The Court was tasked with determining whether its power to grant interim measures in support of arbitral proceedings is extinguished once a final award has been rendered. The Defendant challenged the Court’s jurisdiction, suggesting that the statutory framework for interim relief was limited to ongoing proceedings and did not extend to the post-award enforcement phase. The Court had to interpret whether the legislative language in the 2025 Court Law imposed a temporal limit on the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction.

How did H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC interpret the scope of the DIFC Court’s ancillary jurisdiction?

Justice Stewart rejected the Defendant’s restrictive interpretation of the Court’s powers. He affirmed that the DIFC Court maintains robust jurisdiction to grant interim relief, including freezing orders, even after a final award has been issued, provided the requirements for such relief are met.

The words “current or future” do not limit the scope of the ancillary jurisdiction which is granted to the DIFC Courts in relation to arbitral proceedings.

The Court further reasoned that the risk of asset dissipation remained a critical factor. By evaluating the evidence of the Defendant’s financial disclosures and the nature of the underlying claims, the Court concluded that the Claimant had met the requisite standard to justify the continuation of the freezing order, albeit limited to the UAE jurisdiction to ensure proportionality.

Which statutes and rules were central to the Court’s decision in Omanand v Ondrei?

The primary statutory authority cited was Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, specifically Article 15(4), which the Court utilized to establish its jurisdiction for interim measures. Procedurally, the Court relied on RDC Part 25 and RDC 25.6, which govern the application for and the granting of interim remedies, including freezing injunctions. These rules provided the framework for the Court to assess whether the "real risk of dissipation" test had been satisfied.

How did the Court apply English and DIFC precedents to the facts of this case?

The Court drew upon a body of established jurisprudence to navigate the complexities of freezing orders and disclosure duties. It referenced JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2014] EWHC 4336 (Ch) and Holyoake v Candy [2016] EWHC 970 regarding the standards for freezing orders and the duty of full and frank disclosure. Additionally, the Court looked to Bocimar International NV v Emirates Trading Agency LLC [2015] DIFC CFI 008 to contextualize the enforcement of arbitral awards within the DIFC. These cases were used to reinforce the principle that while the Court has broad powers, the exercise of such powers must be balanced against the duty of the applicant to provide a fair and complete presentation of the facts.

What was the final disposition of the applications before the Court?

The Court granted the Claimant’s Declaration Application, confirming that the payment of USD 5 million into the DIFC Courts Escrow account satisfied the security requirements. The Freezing Order was continued, but its scope was varied to apply only within the DIFC and the wider UAE. The Defendant’s Set Aside Application was dismissed. Regarding costs, the Court decided to reserve the decision pending the final determination of the enforceability of the Final Award.

I consider that the appropriate order as to costs is that they should be reserved pending the determination of the enforceability of the Final Award.

What are the wider implications of this ruling for practitioners in the DIFC?

This decision reinforces the DIFC Court’s position as a pro-arbitration forum that is willing to provide meaningful support to award creditors. The confirmation that Article 15(4) of the 2025 Court Law supports post-award interim relief provides significant comfort to parties seeking to protect assets while enforcement proceedings are pending. Practitioners should note that while the Court is willing to grant worldwide freezing orders, it will carefully scrutinize the proportionality of such orders and may limit them to the UAE if the evidence of global dissipation is not sufficiently compelling. The deep editorial analysis of this case is at: Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050: The Reach of Post-Award Interim Measures Under the 2025 Court Law.

Where can I read the full judgment in Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050?

The full text of the order can be accessed via the DIFC Courts website: https://www.difccourts.ae/rules-decisions/judgments-orders/arbitration/arb-0502025-omanand-v-ondrei or via the CDN mirror: https://littdb.sfo2.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/litt/AE/DIFC/judgments/arbitration/DIFC_ARB-050-2025_20260122.txt.

Cases referred to in this judgment:

Legislation referenced:

• Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 (Article 15(4))
• RDC Part 25
• RDC 25.6