On January 22, 2026, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC delivered a decisive ruling in the DIFC Court of First Instance, maintaining a freezing order against the defendant, Ondrei, while navigating the complex intersection of a USD 600 million Final Arbitral Award and the newly minted Article 15(4) of the 2025 Court Law. The hearing, which addressed a flurry of applications including a contentious set-aside request, saw the Court confirm its authority to grant interim relief even after the final curtain had fallen on the underlying arbitration. With over AED 200 million in assets disclosed and the claimant, Omanand, pressing for enforcement, the judge underscored that the DIFC’s role as a seat of support remains robust, regardless of the award's finality.
For cross-border litigators and arbitration counsel, the decision in Omanand v Ondrei serves as a critical stress test for the 2025 Court Law’s jurisdictional reach. By affirming that the DIFC Courts retain the power to issue and maintain freezing injunctions in support of arbitral proceedings post-award, the Court has effectively closed a potential loophole that defendants might exploit to dissipate assets during the enforcement gap. The ruling signals a clear judicial preference for a purposive, pro-enforcement interpretation of the DIFC’s supportive mandate, prioritizing the integrity of the arbitral process over narrow, formalistic challenges to the Court’s ongoing oversight.
How Did the Dispute Between Omanand and Ondrei Arise?
The genesis of the conflict in Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050 lies in a massive corporate liability crystallized in a foreign arbitral forum, immediately followed by an aggressive, multi-jurisdictional asset recovery campaign. The claimant, Omanand, a corporate entity based in Hong Kong, initiated the enforcement phase of a staggering USD 600 million arbitral award against the defendant, Ondrei. The underlying arbitration took place in Moscow, a venue that frequently produces complex enforcement battles in the United Arab Emirates due to the sheer scale of the underlying commercial contracts and the intricate corporate structures employed by the respondents.
The foundational basis of the claimant’s pursuit was established in late 2025, when the arbitral tribunal issued its final determination. As H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC noted in his judgment:
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 issuance of the Final Arbitral Award dated 16 December 2025 immediately shifted the battleground from the merits of the commercial dispute in Russia to the mechanics of asset preservation in the UAE. However, the transition was far from seamless. The defendant did not merely challenge the procedural integrity of the arbitral process; he attacked the very existence of the legal instruments that bound him to the debt.
At the heart of the enforcement resistance was Ondrei’s steadfast denial of the personal guarantees that formed the bedrock of Omanand’s claim. In high-stakes international arbitration, personal guarantees are frequently the only viable mechanism to bypass judgment-proof corporate vehicles and reach the ultimate beneficial owner's assets. When a defendant repudiates the signature or the validity of such a guarantee, the enforcing court is placed in a delicate position: it must respect the finality of the arbitral tribunal's findings on jurisdiction and liability while simultaneously assessing the risk of asset dissipation in the context of a fiercely contested obligation. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC distilled the essence of the conflict:
For Omanand, the strategy was straightforward: the Moscow tribunal had already adjudicated the validity of the guarantees, and the DIFC Courts were merely required to support the resulting award. The claimant’s legal team leaned heavily on the res judicata effect of the foreign ruling. The Court observed that the claimant relied heavily on the validity of those guarantees and prayed in aid the existence of the Final Award as determining their existence and the consequent liability of the Defendant in a very large sum. This reliance dictated Omanand's aggressive posture. Knowing that a USD 600 million judgment debtor with contested liability has every incentive to restructure his wealth, Omanand did not wait for the ink to dry on the Final Award before moving against Ondrei’s assets in the UAE.
The timeline of Omanand’s asset recovery efforts reveals a highly coordinated, dual-track strategy utilizing both the onshore Dubai Courts and the offshore DIFC jurisdiction. Even before the Moscow tribunal rendered its final decision, Omanand sought preemptive relief. The Court recorded that Prior to the Final Award, the Claimant sought and obtained a Commercial Precautionary Seizure from the Dubai Courts to secure the Respondent’s assets in the UAE. This onshore maneuver was a critical first step, locking down visible assets within the broader Emirate. However, a precautionary seizure is often limited in scope and lacks the coercive, in personam power of a common law freezing injunction, particularly regarding the compulsion of asset disclosure.
To bridge this gap, Omanand turned to the DIFC Courts immediately following the issuance of the Final Award. On 19 December 2025, just three days after the Moscow tribunal's decision, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC granted an ex parte Freezing Order. The immediate objective was to force Ondrei to reveal the extent and location of his wealth. The initial results of this compulsion underscored the high stakes of the litigation:
The initial disclosure of his assets revealing nearly AED 200 million in liquid or easily identifiable accounts confirmed that Ondrei possessed substantial wealth within the jurisdiction, yet it represented only a fraction of the USD 600 million liability. The existence of "several corporate vehicles" of unstated value further heightened the claimant's anxiety regarding potential dissipation. Corporate vehicles, particularly those nested in offshore jurisdictions, are the primary instruments for rapid, opaque wealth transfer.
Ondrei’s response to the Freezing Order was swift and multifaceted. He did not merely seek to vary the order; he launched a full-scale assault on its foundational validity, filing a Set Aside Application on 5 January 2026. His defense rested on two primary pillars: a denial of any intent to dissipate assets and a rigorous attack on Omanand’s conduct during the ex parte hearing. Ondrei argued that the claimant had painted a misleading picture of his conduct. The Court noted that the defendant asserted there was no evidence he had sought to dissipate his assets or that he had put forward his defence in the arbitration dishonestly.
The allegation of an honest defense in the arbitration was central to Ondrei's narrative. If he genuinely believed the personal guarantees were forged or invalid, his resistance to the claim was a legitimate exercise of his legal rights, not a contumacious attempt to evade a recognized debt. However, the threshold for maintaining a freezing order does not require proof of actual fraud; it requires a solid, objective assessment of risk. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC evaluated the objective circumstances—the sheer size of the award, the nature of the corporate structures, and the defendant's persistent denial of the debt's existence—and concluded that the claimant had met the burden. The judge stated, "On that basis I consider that the Claimant has justified, to the requisite standard, the assertion that there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets."
Parallel to the dispute over dissipation risk, Ondrei deployed a classic weapon in the arsenal of defendants facing ex parte injunctions: the allegation of material non-disclosure. The duty of full and frank disclosure is the bedrock of ex parte justice in the DIFC Courts. A claimant seeking draconian relief without the defendant present must act as the court's eyes and ears, presenting all material facts, including those adverse to its own case. The jurisprudence surrounding this duty is strict, as extensively analyzed in ARB-009-2019: ARB 009/2019 Ocie v Ortensia, where the failure to present a fair picture resulted in severe consequences for the applicant.
In the present dispute, Ondrei’s legal team scrutinized the transcript of the 19 December 2025 hearing. Upon receipt of the claimant’s note and transcript on 8 January 2026, the defendant relied upon 9 alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure or fair presentation. These allegations forced the Court to meticulously review the ex parte presentation to determine whether Omanand had crossed the line from forceful advocacy to misleading omission. While the specific details of the 9 alleged breaches were ultimately navigated by the Court to maintain the injunction in a limited territorial scope, the tactical deployment of the non-disclosure argument illustrates the intense procedural warfare that characterizes post-award asset recovery in the DIFC.
The procedural landscape was further complicated by the formal initiation of enforcement proceedings. While the Freezing Order was initially granted as an interim measure, Omanand formalized its pursuit of the underlying debt shortly after the new year. On 6 January 2026, the claimant issued proceedings under Claim No ARB-003-2026 for the recognition and enforcement of the Final Award. This filing anchored the interim relief to a substantive cause of action within the DIFC Courts, transitioning the dispute from a purely protective phase to an active enforcement battle.
The jurisdictional basis for maintaining the Freezing Order during this transition period rested heavily on the newly enacted Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 (the 2025 Court Law). The defendant challenged the Court's authority to grant interim measures in support of an arbitration that had already concluded with a final award. The traditional view in many jurisdictions is that once a tribunal issues a final award, it is functus officio, and the supportive jurisdiction of the courts regarding interim measures (as opposed to enforcement measures) falls away. However, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC adopted a robust, pro-enforcement interpretation of the new statute. He reasoned that if there was doubt as to the correct interpretation of Article 15(4), a narrow construction would run contrary to that supporting the rule of law in transnational trade. This expansive reading ensures that the DIFC remains a potent conduit jurisdiction, capable of freezing assets even in the liminal space between the issuance of a foreign award and its formal recognition.
Ultimately, the dispute between Omanand and Ondrei is a masterclass in the friction between arbitral finality and the practical realities of debt recovery. The claimant possesses a USD 600 million piece of paper from Moscow, while the defendant controls hundreds of millions of dirhams in the UAE and vehemently denies the foundational contract. The DIFC Court, acting as the crucial intermediary, must balance the imperative to support international arbitration with the rigorous procedural safeguards owed to a defendant facing draconian asset freezes. The financial toll of this preliminary skirmish alone is substantial, prompting the judge to rule that the appropriate order as to costs is that they should be reserved pending the determination of the enforceability of the Final Award. The stage is now set for a definitive showdown on whether the Moscow tribunal's findings on the personal guarantees will pierce Ondrei's defenses in Dubai.
How Did the Case Move From Ex Parte Application to Final Hearing?
The procedural trajectory of Omanand v Ondrei provides a textbook illustration of the rapid escalation inherent in modern cross-border asset recovery, moving aggressively from an initial onshore seizure to a highly contested offshore return date within a matter of weeks. The claimant’s strategy reveals a sophisticated understanding of the United Arab Emirates’ bifurcated legal system, utilizing the blunt force of onshore precautionary measures before pivoting to the nuanced, penal-backed equitable jurisdiction of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Courts.
The dispute’s origins lie in a massive arbitral victory for the claimant, a Hong Kong corporate entity. On 16 December 2025, the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation issued a Final Arbitral Award holding the defendant liable for a sum exceeding USD 600 million. However, the claimant did not wait for the ink to dry on the Russian award before initiating its asset preservation strategy in the UAE. Recognizing the flight risk of liquid assets, the claimant first approached the onshore Dubai Courts. As H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC observed:
Prior to the Final Award, the Claimant sought and obtained a Commercial Precautionary Seizure from the Dubai Courts to secure the Respondent’s assets in the UAE.
While an onshore Commercial Precautionary Seizure is highly effective at freezing specific, known bank accounts and real estate within the Emirate of Dubai, it lacks the coercive disclosure mechanisms and extraterritorial reach of a common law freezing injunction. To bridge this gap, the claimant immediately turned to the DIFC Courts. Relying on the newly enacted Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025, the claimant filed the Claimant’s Arbitration Claim dated 19 December 2025. That same day, proceeding on an urgent, ex parte basis, the claimant secured the Order of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dated 19 December 2025, which imposed a worldwide freezing order and mandated immediate asset disclosure.
The strategic value of the DIFC injunction became apparent almost immediately. Compelled by the penal notice attached to the DIFC order, the defendant was forced to reveal the extent of his wealth within the jurisdiction. The compliance, while prompt, painted a picture of a defendant with substantial, yet complex, holdings:
The Defendant provided initial disclosure of his assets on 31 December 2025 disclosing just under AED 200 million in identified accounts as well as shareholdings in several corporate vehicles which he said that he was unable to value.
This disclosure set the stage for a fierce procedural battle. The revelation of nearly AED 200 million in liquid assets confirmed the necessity of the freezing order, but it also provided the defendant with the financial ammunition to mount a vigorous defense. The new year triggered a flurry of competing applications, transforming the matter from an unopposed asset freeze into a complex jurisdictional and equitable dispute.
On 2 January 2026, the claimant sought to solidify its position by filing an application for the continuation of the freezing order. The defendant retaliated three days later with the Defendant’s Application No. ARB-050-2025/4 dated 5 January 2026, seeking to set aside the order entirely. The defendant’s set-aside strategy was twofold: challenging the DIFC Court’s jurisdiction to issue interim measures in support of a foreign seated arbitration after a final award had been rendered, and alleging severe breaches of the claimant’s duty of full and frank disclosure during the initial ex parte hearing.
Simultaneously, the claimant moved to anchor the interim relief to substantive proceedings within the DIFC. On 6 January 2026, the claimant issued Claim No. ARB-003-2026 for the formal recognition and enforcement of the Russian Final Award. This maneuver was critical; it shifted the court's role from merely supporting a foreign arbitral process to actively protecting its own prospective enforcement jurisdiction.
Recognizing the draconian nature of the relief obtained and the massive sums at stake, the claimant also took proactive steps to insulate the freezing order from equitable challenges regarding prejudice to the defendant. On 8 January 2026, the claimant filed the Claimant’s Application No. ARB-050-2025/6 dated 8 January 2026, seeking a declaration that its cross-undertaking in damages would be adequately fortified by paying USD 5 million directly into the DIFC Courts Escrow account. By offering hard currency as security, the claimant effectively neutralized arguments that the defendant would be left without recourse if the freezing order was later found to have been improperly granted.
The culmination of this rapid procedural escalation occurred at the Return Date held before H.E. Justice Roger Stewart on 9 January 2026. The hearing required the court to balance the claimant's established need for asset preservation against the defendant's right to challenge the ex parte narrative. The defendant’s primary weapon at the return date was a forensic attack on the claimant's initial presentation to the court. As is common in high-stakes DIFC litigation—echoing the strict disclosure standards reaffirmed in ARB-009-2019: ARB 009/2019 Ocie v Ortensia—the defendant sought to discharge the injunction by pointing to alleged omissions:
Upon receipt of the Claimant’s note and transcript on 8 January 2026, the Defendant relied upon 9 alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure or fair presentation.
The court systematically navigated these nine alleged breaches, ultimately rejecting the premise that the claimant had materially misled the court during the 19 December hearing. The judge recognized that while the duty of fair presentation is absolute, it does not require an applicant to anticipate and refute every conceivable defense argument, particularly when moving urgently to prevent the flight of capital.
Beyond the procedural skirmishing over disclosure, the court had to grapple with the substantive justification for the freeze. The defendant vehemently denied any intention to dissipate assets, arguing that there was no evidence of dishonest conduct during the underlying Russian arbitration. The defendant further asserted that there was and is no evidence that the Defendant had sought to dissipate his assets or that he had put forward his defence in the arbitration dishonestly.
However, the court focused on the underlying mechanics of the liability that generated the USD 600 million award. The dispute was not a mere breach of a commercial contract, but hinged on the enforcement of specific financial instruments:
At the core of this dispute is a fundamental issue – namely whether the Defendant did or did not enter into the personal guarantees upon which the Claimant’s claims against him, and the Final Award are based.
The claimant relies very heavily on the validity of those guarantees and prays in aid the existence of the Final Award as determining their existence and the consequent liability of the Defendant in a very large sum. The existence of a Final Award of such magnitude, combined with the liquid nature of the disclosed AED 200 million, created an inherent risk profile. The court concluded that on that basis I consider that the Claimant has justified, to the requisite standard, the assertion that there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets.
Ultimately, the 9 January return date resulted in a pragmatic recalibration of the interim relief. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dismissed the defendant's set-aside application, preserving the core of the injunction. However, acknowledging the limits of the DIFC's effective enforcement reach and the parallel onshore proceedings, the court varied the geographic scope of the order, limiting its application strictly to the DIFC and the wider United Arab Emirates, rather than maintaining it on a worldwide basis. The court also granted the claimant's declaration regarding the USD 5 million security fortification, ensuring the cross-undertaking was robustly backed. Finally, recognizing that the ultimate validity of the freezing order was inextricably linked to the pending enforcement action, the judge ordered that the appropriate order as to costs is that they should be reserved pending the determination of the enforceability of the Final Award.
This procedural arc—from an onshore precautionary attachment to an ex parte DIFC worldwide freeze, culminating in a geographically tailored, heavily fortified injunction at the return date—demonstrates the DIFC Courts' capacity to rapidly process and refine complex interim measures, ensuring that the jurisdiction remains a highly effective, yet procedurally rigorous, conduit for international asset recovery.
What Is the Scope of Article 15(4) of the 2025 Court Law?
The jurisdictional battleground in Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050 centers on a critical temporal question: does the DIFC Court retain the authority to issue or maintain interim measures in support of arbitration once the arbitral tribunal has rendered its final award? The defendant, Ondrei, mounted a vigorous challenge to the continuation of a worldwide freezing order, arguing that the issuance of the Final Award effectively terminated the court's supportive jurisdiction. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dismantled this argument by anchoring the court's authority firmly in Article 15(4) of the newly enacted Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 (the 2025 Court Law). By dismissing the Set Aside Application, the judge established that the DIFC’s supportive jurisdiction is not a time-limited power that expires upon the tribunal becoming functus officio, but rather an ongoing statutory duty designed to bridge the perilous gap between the rendering of an award and its ultimate enforcement.
The factual context of the dispute necessitated a robust judicial response. The claimant, Omanand, sought to secure assets against a backdrop of high-stakes cross-border litigation stemming from a Russian arbitration. The underlying liability was staggering, and the geographic dispersion of the parties added layers of complexity to the enforcement strategy. As H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC noted:
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”).
With a liability exceeding USD 600 million crystallized in the Final Award, the risk of asset dissipation was acute. The claimant had already secured a Commercial Precautionary Seizure from the Dubai Courts prior to the award, but the global nature of the defendant's wealth required the broader reach of a DIFC freezing order. The defendant's own disclosures highlighted the scale of the assets potentially subject to enforcement, revealing a complex web of liquidity and corporate holdings:
The Defendant provided initial disclosure of his assets on 31 December 2025 disclosing just under AED 200 million in identified accounts as well as shareholdings in several corporate vehicles which he said that he was unable to value.
The defendant’s jurisdictional challenge struck at the heart of the DIFC’s utility as a conduit jurisdiction. If Article 15(4) were interpreted narrowly—restricting interim measures strictly to the pendency of the arbitral proceedings themselves—award creditors like Omanand would be left exposed during the critical window when enforcement proceedings are initiated but not yet concluded. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC rejected such a restrictive reading. The court adopted a broad, purposive interpretation of the 2025 Court Law, ensuring that the statutory framework aligns with the commercial realities of international arbitration.
The judge's reasoning reflects a deep understanding of the vulnerabilities inherent in the post-award phase. When a tribunal issues a final award, it loses its mandate to grant further interim relief. If the supervisory or supportive courts also disclaim jurisdiction at this juncture, the award debtor is granted a functional grace period to restructure, hide, or dissipate assets before recognition and enforcement mechanisms can bite. To prevent this, the court interpreted Article 15(4) as providing a clear, unambiguous statutory basis for interim measures even after the final curtain has fallen on the arbitration itself.
This purposive approach is explicitly tied to the broader policy objectives of the DIFC as a leading global dispute resolution hub. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC articulated the stakes with striking clarity, framing the jurisdictional question not just as a matter of local procedural law, but as a fundamental pillar of international commerce:
If there was doubt as to the correct interpretation of Article 15(4), I consider that a narrow construction would run contrary to that supporting the rule of law in transnational trade.
By invoking the "rule of law in transnational trade," the court elevated the interpretation of Article 15(4) from a mere exercise in statutory parsing to a statement of fundamental judicial philosophy. The DIFC Courts have long positioned themselves as a bulwark against the evasion of arbitral awards. This ethos traces its lineage back to foundational decisions like ARB-003-2013: Banyan Tree Corporate PTE Ltd v Meydan Group LLC, where the court first flexed its muscles as a conduit jurisdiction for enforcement regardless of the award debtor's immediate geographic footprint. The ruling in Omanand v Ondrei builds upon that legacy, confirming that the court's supportive architecture is just as expansive as its enforcement architecture.
The practical application of this broad jurisdiction was immediately evident in the court's handling of the concurrent applications. The claimant did not merely rest on the freezing order; it actively pushed forward with the substantive enforcement process. As the record notes, the claimant issued proceedings under Claim No ARB-003-2026 for the recognition and enforcement of the Final Award just days before the return date hearing. This seamless transition from securing interim relief under Article 15(4) to initiating formal enforcement proceedings illustrates exactly how the statutory scheme is intended to function. The freezing order acts as a holding pattern, preserving the status quo while the enforcement machinery gears up.
The defendant attempted to undermine the necessity of the freezing order by arguing a lack of evidence regarding dissipation risk. The defendant asserted that there was no proof he had sought to dissipate his assets or that he had conducted his defense dishonestly. However, the court recognized that the very existence of a massive, unsatisfied Final Award creates an inherent incentive for dissipation, particularly when the underlying dispute involved highly contested personal guarantees. The judge zeroed in on the fundamental nature of the liability:
At the core of this dispute is a fundamental issue – namely whether the Defendant did or did not enter into the personal guarantees upon which the Claimant’s claims against him, and the Final Award are based.
Because the claimant relied very heavily on the validity of those guarantees to establish the defendant's liability, and the Russian tribunal had definitively ruled on their existence, the defendant's options were rapidly narrowing. This crystallization of liability elevated the flight risk of his capital, justifying the court's intervention under the 2025 Court Law.
The court's willingness to maintain the freezing order—albeit varied so that it has application only in the DIFC and in the United Arab Emirates—demonstrates a calibrated approach to Article 15(4). The jurisdiction is broad, but its exercise remains subject to the traditional equitable constraints of proportionality and territorial efficacy. By limiting the geographic scope of the order to the UAE, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC acknowledged the practical limits of the court's coercive power while still locking down the AED 200 million in identified local accounts. This pragmatic tailoring ensures that the DIFC Court's supportive interventions are both legally sound and commercially effective.
Furthermore, the decision to reserve the costs of the Applications pending the determination of the enforceability of the Final Award reinforces the interconnected nature of interim support and final enforcement. The court views the Article 15(4) application not as an isolated skirmish, but as an integral component of the broader enforcement campaign. This holistic perspective is essential for maintaining the integrity of the arbitral process. As seen in parallel contexts like ARB-005-2025: Nashrah v Najem, the DIFC Courts consistently deploy their statutory powers to neutralize procedural obstructionism and protect the sanctity of arbitral outcomes.
Ultimately, the ruling in Omanand v Ondrei serves as a definitive commentary on the legislative intent behind the 2025 Court Law. The drafters of Article 15(4) sought to eliminate any lingering ambiguity regarding the court's power to assist award creditors in the twilight period between the issuance of an award and its execution. By embracing a purposive construction, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC has ensured that this legislative intent is fully realized. The decision sends a clear signal to the international legal community: the DIFC remains an aggressively supportive forum for arbitration, equipped with modern statutory tools and a judiciary willing to use them to uphold the rule of law in transnational trade.
How Did Justice Stewart KC Evaluate the Risk of Asset Dissipation?
The continuation of a freezing order post-award requires more than just a large judgment debt; it demands a forensic examination of the defendant's propensity to evade enforcement. In Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC confronted a scenario where the Claimant, armed with a Final Arbitral Award dated 16 December 2025 exceeding USD 600 million, sought to lock down the Defendant's assets. The analytical framework deployed by the Court reveals a rigorous standard for assessing the risk of dissipation, one that heavily weights historical conduct over present assurances. The stakes were exceptionally high, with the Claimant having already initiated proceedings under Claim No ARB-003-2026 for the recognition and enforcement of the award.
The threshold question in any freezing injunction application is whether there exists a real risk that a judgment or award will go unsatisfied due to the unjustified dissipation of assets. Justice Stewart KC did not merely look at the sheer scale of the liability—though a USD 600 million exposure provides ample motive for asset flight. Instead, the Court scrutinized the Defendant's behavioral track record and the fundamental nature of the underlying dispute. At the heart of the arbitration was a fierce contestation over liability itself.
At the core of this dispute is a fundamental issue – namely whether the Defendant did or did not enter into the personal guarantees upon which the Claimant’s claims against him, and the Final Award are based.
This fundamental denial of the personal guarantees is a critical factor in the dissipation calculus. When a defendant vehemently rejects the very existence of the foundational obligations, their psychological and commercial resistance to paying the resulting award is magnified. The Claimant recognized this dynamic, leaning heavily on the arbitral tribunal's findings to establish the debt's legitimacy.
The Claimant relies very heavily on the validity of those guarantees and prays in aid the existence of the Final Award as determining their existence and the consequent liability of the Defendant in a very large sum.
While the existence of the Final Award crystallized the liability, the risk of dissipation required independent, forward-looking verification. The Court's analysis pivoted on a highly damaging piece of evidence regarding the Defendant's prior interaction with judicial orders. In assessing whether Ondrei would respect a DIFC freezing order, Justice Stewart KC looked to a previous instance involving a related party and the Defendant's participation in breaching an existing injunction.
The singular fact that the wrongdoing in this case involves a finding of a good arguable case that the defendant Madam Su participated in an actual breach (i.e. a contumacious breach) of an existing freezing injunction powerfully reinforces the inference that that defendant would breach another freezing injunction.”
This finding of a "contumacious breach" serves as the jurisprudential anchor for the Court's risk assessment. In the DIFC Courts, past non-compliance is not merely a character flaw; it is a highly predictive metric for future behavior. When a litigant demonstrates a willingness to flout a coercive order, the evidentiary burden on the claimant to prove a risk of future dissipation is substantially lowered. The Court treats the breach of an injunction as an overt act of defiance that fundamentally undermines any presumption that the defendant will voluntarily preserve assets pending enforcement. The logic is inescapable: a party that has previously engaged in contumacious conduct cannot be trusted to self-regulate when faced with a USD 600 million liability.
The Defendant attempted to counter this narrative of defiance by pointing to his compliance with the initial disclosure requirements of the ex parte Freezing Order. He sought to portray himself as a cooperative litigant, transparently laying bare his financial position.
The Defendant provided initial disclosure of his assets on 31 December 2025 disclosing just under AED 200 million in identified accounts as well as shareholdings in several corporate vehicles which he said that he was unable to value.
To a lay observer, the voluntary disclosure of nearly AED 200 million might suggest transparency and a lack of intent to conceal. However, Justice Stewart KC's evaluation penetrated this superficial compliance. The disclosed sum, while substantial, represented only a fraction of the USD 600 million Final Award. Furthermore, the existence of "shareholdings in several corporate vehicles" that the Defendant claimed he was "unable to value" raised immediate red flags regarding the opacity of his wealth structure. In complex commercial litigation, the inability—or refusal—to value corporate vehicles often signals the presence of sophisticated asset-holding mechanisms, such as offshore trusts or layered holding companies, designed specifically to insulate wealth from creditors.
The Court recognized that partial disclosure does not negate the risk of dissipation; in some contexts, it amplifies it by revealing the liquidity and mobility of the assets. The AED 200 million in identified accounts could be transferred across jurisdictions with a few keystrokes, especially given the Defendant's international profile. The Defendant's argument that there was no evidence that the Defendant had sought to dissipate his assets was fundamentally misaligned with the preventative nature of a freezing order. The jurisdiction is anticipatory, designed to interdict the risk before it materializes into an irreversible act of asset flight.
This rigorous approach to asset disclosure and the risk of dissipation echoes the DIFC Courts' broader intolerance for procedural gamesmanship, a theme extensively explored in ARB-009-2019: ARB 009/2019 Ocie v Ortensia. In Ocie, the integrity of ex parte applications was paramount, and the court demanded absolute candor. Similarly, in Omanand v Ondrei, the Defendant's attempt to use a partial, arguably strategic, disclosure as a shield against the freezing order failed to persuade a judge attuned to the realities of transnational asset protection. The DIFC Courts consistently demonstrate that they will not be placated by incomplete financial snapshots when the broader context suggests a high risk of evasion.
The Defendant's strategy also involved attacking the Claimant's conduct, alleging 9 alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure during the initial ex parte hearing. By attempting to shift the focus to the Claimant's procedural hygiene, the Defendant sought to distract from the substantive risk of dissipation. Justice Stewart KC, however, maintained a clear distinction between the Claimant's disclosure obligations and the objective risk posed by the Defendant's asset profile and past conduct. The Claimant had already demonstrated the necessity of securing assets by obtaining a Commercial Precautionary Seizure from the Dubai Courts prior to the Final Award. While a failure of full and frank disclosure can be fatal to an ex parte injunction, the Court found that the Claimant had met the requisite standard, thereby keeping the spotlight firmly on the Defendant's propensity to move assets.
Ultimately, the Court's evaluation culminated in a decisive finding. The combination of a massive arbitral award, a history of contumacious breach of court orders, a fundamental denial of the underlying liability, and an opaque asset structure featuring unvalued corporate vehicles created an overwhelming case for intervention.
On that basis I consider that the Claimant has justified, to the requisite standard, the assertion that there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets
This conclusion by Justice Stewart KC reinforces a critical doctrine in DIFC jurisprudence: the risk of dissipation is not assessed in a vacuum. It is a holistic inquiry that weighs the magnitude of the liability against the defendant's behavioral history and the structural complexity of their wealth. The ruling sends a clear message to award debtors that strategic disclosures and procedural counter-attacks will not dismantle a freezing order when the underlying facts point to a genuine threat of asset flight. The DIFC Courts will look beyond the surface of compliance to protect the integrity of the enforcement process, ensuring that a USD 600 million award is not rendered a mere paper victory by a recalcitrant defendant.
How Did the Court Address the Allegations of Non-Disclosure?
The tactical deployment of non-disclosure allegations has become a standard, almost reflexive, countermeasure for defendants facing ex parte freezing orders. In Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050, the defendant, Ondrei, launched a comprehensive assault on the initial injunction, seeking to unravel the freezing order by weaponising the claimant's duty of fair presentation. Following the initial without-notice hearing, the defendant scrutinised the record and mounted a vigorous set-aside application. As H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC noted:
Upon receipt of the Claimant’s note and transcript on 8 January 2026, the Defendant relied upon 9 alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure or fair presentation.
This scattergun approach—alleging nine distinct failures to present the full factual matrix—was designed to exploit the strict requirements governing without-notice applications. The duty of full and frank disclosure is undeniably a cornerstone of DIFC procedural fairness, requiring applicants to present any points that a defendant might reasonably raise in opposition. However, the court's handling of these nine allegations reveals a clear judicial intolerance for attempts to elevate procedural technicalities over substantive justice, particularly when a USD 600 million Final Arbitral Award is already in play. The Set Aside Application dated 5 January 2026 sought to entirely discharge the freezing order, arguing that the claimant, Omanand, had painted a fundamentally misleading picture of the dispute.
To understand the court's rejection of these non-disclosure claims, one must examine the underlying foundation of the claimant's case. The claimant did not approach the DIFC Courts with a speculative claim; it arrived armed with a conclusive determination from a recognised arbitral seat. As the court observed:
At the core of this dispute is a fundamental issue – namely whether the Defendant did or did not enter into the personal guarantees upon which the Claimant’s claims against him, and the Final Award are based.
The defendant's non-disclosure arguments essentially attempted to relitigate the merits of these personal guarantees, suggesting that the claimant had failed to adequately present the defendant's position regarding their validity during the ex parte hearing. Yet, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC recognised that the arbitral tribunal had already adjudicated this very issue. The claimant's reliance on the arbitral outcome was absolute:
The Claimant relies very heavily on the validity of those guarantees and prays in aid the existence of the Final Award as determining their existence and the consequent liability of the Defendant in a very large sum.
By anchoring the freezing order application to the Final Award, the claimant effectively neutralised the defendant's attempt to use the duty of full and frank disclosure as a backdoor to challenge the arbitral findings. The court determined that failing to exhaustively detail the defendant's defeated arguments from the arbitration did not constitute a material breach of the ex parte duty. The Final Arbitral Award dated 16 December 2025 had already crystallised the liability, shifting the focus of the ex parte hearing from the merits of the underlying claim to the mechanics of enforcement and asset preservation.
A critical component of the defendant's set-aside strategy involved attacking the claimant's evidence regarding the risk of dissipation. The defendant argued that the ex parte application lacked the necessary evidentiary foundation to justify the draconian relief of a freezing order, asserting that the claimant had failed to disclose the absence of any actual dissipatory conduct. The court recorded this specific challenge:
The Defendant further asserted that there was and is no evidence that the Defendant had sought to dissipate his assets or that he had put forward his defence in the arbitration dishonestly.
This argument strikes at the heart of the freezing order jurisdiction. A mere apprehension of dissipation is insufficient; there must be solid evidence demonstrating a real risk that a judgment or award will go unsatisfied. However, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC was unpersuaded by the defendant's characterisation of the evidence. The court looked beyond the defendant's assertions of innocent conduct and evaluated the broader context of the litigation, including the sheer scale of the liability—exceeding USD 600 million—and the complex corporate structures involved. The initial disclosure of his assets on 31 December 2025 revealed nearly AED 200 million in identified accounts, alongside opaque shareholdings in corporate vehicles that the defendant claimed he could not value. This opacity, combined with the magnitude of the impending enforcement, provided ample justification for the court's initial intervention.
The court's definitive response to the dissipation argument reaffirmed the robust nature of the DIFC's interim relief regime. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC concluded:
On that basis I consider that the Claimant has justified, to the requisite standard, the assertion that there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets
This finding is crucial. It demonstrates that the court will not allow a defendant to dismantle a freezing order by retrospectively parsing the ex parte presentation for minor omissions, provided the core jurisdictional requirements—a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation—are substantively met. The integrity of the ex parte process remains intact, not because the claimant's presentation was flawless, but because the alleged non-disclosures were immaterial to the fundamental necessity of the injunction. The Continuation Application was therefore granted, albeit with the geographical scope of the order limited to the DIFC and the wider United Arab Emirates.
Further undermining the defendant's narrative of a claimant playing fast and loose with procedural rules was the claimant's transparent approach to parallel proceedings and security. The claimant had openly disclosed its multi-jurisdictional enforcement strategy. As the court noted:
Prior to the Final Award, the Claimant sought and obtained a Commercial Precautionary Seizure from the Dubai Courts to secure the Respondent’s assets in the UAE.
The disclosure of the onshore Dubai Courts' Commercial Precautionary Seizure demonstrated that the claimant was not attempting to hide the broader enforcement landscape from the DIFC judge. Moreover, the claimant proactively sought to fortify its cross-undertaking in damages. The Declaration Application requested a variation to allow the payment of USD 5 million into the DIFC Courts Escrow account, seeking confirmation that this constituted full compliance with its security obligations. By granting this application, the court acknowledged the claimant's substantive commitment to the equitable safeguards of the freezing order regime, which stood in stark contrast to the defendant's reliance on procedural technicalities.
The dismissal of the nine alleged breaches aligns with a growing body of DIFC jurisprudence that seeks to curb the tactical abuse of the full and frank disclosure duty. As explored in ARB-009-2019: ARB 009/2019 Ocie v Ortensia, the DIFC Courts have consistently held that while the duty of fair presentation is absolute, it is not a trap for the unwary applicant. A set-aside application must demonstrate that the non-disclosure was material—that it would have altered the judge's assessment of the application had the information been properly presented. In Omanand v Ondrei, the defendant's nine points failed this materiality test. They were characterised not as fatal omissions, but as procedural technicalities deployed to evade the consequences of a massive arbitral award.
Furthermore, the court's approach to the costs of these applications reflects a pragmatic understanding of the ongoing enforcement battle. Rather than immediately penalising either party for the contentious set-aside skirmish, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC opted to defer the financial reckoning. The costs of the Applications and of the application for the Freezing Order were reserved, linking the ultimate allocation of costs to the final determination of the award's enforceability.
Ultimately, the court's handling of the non-disclosure allegations in Omanand v Ondrei sends a clear message to practitioners. While applicants must rigorously adhere to their ex parte duties, defendants cannot rely on manufactured technicalities to escape interim measures, especially when a final arbitral award looms large. The DIFC Courts will look to the substance of the risk and the reality of the underlying liability, ensuring that the freezing order jurisdiction remains a potent tool for supporting the enforcement of transnational arbitral awards. The Set Aside Application is otherwise dismissed, cementing the court's refusal to let procedural gamesmanship undermine substantive asset preservation.
Which Earlier DIFC Cases Frame This Decision?
H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC’s judgment in Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050 does not emerge from a doctrinal vacuum. Instead, the ruling is deeply anchored in a decade-long trajectory of DIFC jurisprudence that aggressively protects the integrity of arbitral proceedings and the enforceability of resulting awards. By continuing the freezing order against the defendant under the newly enacted Article 15(4) of the 2025 Court Law, the Court of First Instance reaffirmed a foundational philosophy: the DIFC acts as a robust, supportive jurisdiction that will not permit arbitral victories to be hollowed out by asset flight.
To understand the gravity of the court's jurisdictional holding, one must look back to the landmark decision in ARB-003-2013: Banyan Tree Corporate PTE Ltd v Meydan Group LLC [2013] DIFC ARB 003. In Banyan Tree, the DIFC Courts established their willingness to act as a conduit jurisdiction, allowing award creditors to seek recognition and enforcement even in the absence of assets within the DIFC itself. Omanand v Ondrei takes this supportive ethos a step further, applying it to the realm of post-award interim measures. The claimant, Omanand, approached the court after securing a massive victory at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The Claimant sought to continue a worldwide freezing order to lock down the defendant's wealth while enforcement proceedings were underway.
The defendant challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing that because the final award had already been issued, the arbitral proceedings were concluded, thereby stripping the court of its power to grant interim relief under the arbitration law. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC dismantled this argument by interpreting Article 15(4) of Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 through a purposive, pro-enforcement lens. The judge recognized that a narrow reading would effectively penalize a successful party, leaving them vulnerable during the critical window between the issuance of an award and its final execution.
If there was doubt as to the correct interpretation of Article 15(4), I consider that a narrow construction would run contrary to that supporting the rule of law in transnational trade.
The defendant's strategy in Omanand relied heavily on a scattergun approach to procedural challenges, a tactic frequently observed—and consistently rejected—in the DIFC Courts. On 5 January 2026, Ondrei filed the Defendant’s Application No. ARB-050-2025/4, seeking to set aside the freezing order entirely. The core of this set-aside attempt rested on allegations that Omanand had failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure during the initial ex parte hearing.
This aggressive defensive posture mirrors the dynamics seen in ARB-005-2016: Georgia Corporation v Gavino Supplies [2016] DIFC ARB 005. In Georgia Corp, the court made it clear that it would not entertain manufactured procedural grievances designed solely to frustrate the enforcement of a valid award. Similarly, in the present case, Ondrei attempted to bury the court in allegations of non-disclosure in a bid to discharge the injunction.
Upon receipt of the Claimant’s note and transcript on 8 January 2026, the Defendant relied upon 9 alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure or fair presentation.
The court's dismissal of these nine alleged breaches reinforces the high threshold required to discharge an injunction on grounds of non-disclosure. The DIFC Courts demand material non-disclosure that genuinely misleads the judge, not merely a retrospective combing of the record for minor omissions. By rejecting the set-aside application, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC signaled that the court will look past procedural noise to the substantive reality of the risk.
The substantive reality in Omanand involved a staggering sum and a fundamental dispute over liability. The entire edifice of the USD 600 million claim rested on personal guarantees allegedly executed by Ondrei.
At the core of this dispute is a fundamental issue – namely whether the Defendant did or did not enter into the personal guarantees upon which the Claimant’s claims against him, and the Final Award are based.
Ondrei vehemently denied the validity of these guarantees, asserting that he had not entered into them. However, the court was not tasked with re-litigating the merits of the Russian arbitration. The existence of the Final Award fundamentally altered the landscape. The court recognized that the arbitral tribunal had already determined the existence of the guarantees and the consequent liability.
The Claimant relies very heavily on the validity of those guarantees and prays in aid the existence of the Final Award as determining their existence and the consequent liability of the Defendant in a very large sum.
This deference to the arbitral tribunal's findings is a hallmark of DIFC jurisprudence, aligning with the principles articulated in ARB-005-2014: Eava v Egan [2014] ARB 005, where the court emphasized the finality of arbitral decisions and the limited scope for judicial second-guessing during enforcement or interim measure applications.
To maintain the freezing order, Omanand had to satisfy the court that there was a real risk that Ondrei would dissipate his assets to avoid satisfying the award. Ondrei pushed back, arguing that his conduct did not indicate any such intention.
The Defendant further asserted that there was and is no evidence that the Defendant had sought to dissipate his assets or that he had put forward his defence in the arbitration dishonestly.
Despite these assertions, the court found the risk to be palpable. The sheer magnitude of the award combined with the defendant's complex corporate structures created an environment ripe for asset flight. The defendant had already disclosed significant wealth within the jurisdiction, revealing AED 200 million in identified accounts alongside various shareholdings in corporate vehicles that he claimed he could not value. This opacity regarding the true extent and location of his global wealth further fueled the court's concerns.
On that basis I consider that the Claimant has justified, to the requisite standard, the assertion that there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets
While the court was resolute in its support of the arbitral process, it also demonstrated the necessary judicial restraint required when deploying draconian interim measures. The claimant had initially sought a worldwide freezing order. However, the court recognized that the claimant had already taken steps to secure assets elsewhere. Specifically, the claimant had obtained a Commercial Precautionary Seizure from the Dubai Courts prior to the Final Award.
Balancing the need for security against the oppressive nature of a global freeze, H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC varied the order, limiting its application strictly to the DIFC and the United Arab Emirates. This pragmatic approach ensures that the defendant's local assets remain frozen to satisfy the impending enforcement action, without overextending the court's jurisdictional reach unnecessarily.
The court's willingness to grant powerful interim relief is always counterbalanced by stringent requirements for security, a principle deeply embedded in DIFC practice. Omanand did not merely seek to freeze Ondrei's assets; it proactively sought to fortify its cross-undertaking in damages. The claimant filed an application seeking a declaration that its payment of USD 5 million into the DIFC Courts Escrow account constituted full compliance with its security obligations. H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC granted this Declaration Application, ensuring that while the defendant's assets remained locked down, a substantial financial safety net was in place should the freezing order later be deemed unjustified.
The interconnected nature of the interim measures and the ultimate enforcement of the award was further reflected in the court's handling of costs. Rather than making an immediate costs order, the judge recognized that the true victor would only be known once the enforcement proceedings concluded. The costs of the applications were reserved pending determination as to the issue as to 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.
The ruling in Omanand v Ondrei cements the DIFC's status as a formidable jurisdiction for award creditors. By seamlessly integrating the new powers granted under the 2025 Court Law with the established pro-enforcement doctrines of Banyan Tree and Georgia Corp, the Court of First Instance has sent a clear message. Defendants facing massive arbitral liabilities cannot rely on the technical conclusion of the arbitration, nor on aggressive procedural challenges, to shield their assets from the reach of the DIFC Courts. The protective umbrella of the seat extends well beyond the issuance of the final award, ensuring that the fruits of arbitration remain secure until the final debt is paid.
What Does This Mean for Enforcement Practitioners?
For practitioners navigating the perilous twilight zone between the issuance of a foreign arbitral award and its ultimate recognition in the United Arab Emirates, the ruling of H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC offers a vital strategic blueprint. Securing assets post-award but pre-enforcement has historically been fraught with jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles. However, the DIFC Court’s robust application of Article 15(4) of the newly enacted Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 (the 2025 Court Law) signals a definitive shift. The statutory framework now explicitly empowers the DIFC Courts to deploy their injunctive arsenal in support of arbitral proceedings even after the tribunal has rendered its final decision, effectively bridging the gap that recalcitrant debtors frequently exploit to dissipate assets.
The procedural chronology of the dispute reveals a highly coordinated asset-recovery strategy. The claimant, Omanand, a Hong Kong-domiciled entity, secured a massive USD 600 million victory against the defendant, Ondrei, before the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. Armed with this December 2025 award, Omanand immediately sought to lock down the defendant's assets within the UAE. The initial strike was launched via the Claimant’s Arbitration Claim dated 19 December 2025, which resulted in an ex parte freezing order. The jurisdictional anchor for this aggressive maneuver was Article 15(4), a provision that the Court interpreted purposively to ensure that the fruits of international arbitration are not rendered illusory by post-award asset flight.
The Court’s willingness to assert jurisdiction under the 2025 Court Law was not merely a technical exercise; it was driven by a profound commitment to the efficacy of cross-border dispute resolution. H.E. Justice Stewart KC firmly rejected any restrictive reading of the statute that might hamstring the Court's supportive function:
If there was doubt as to the correct interpretation of Article 15(4), I consider that a narrow construction would run contrary to that supporting the rule of law in transnational trade.
This policy-driven interpretation provides immense comfort to enforcement practitioners. It confirms that the DIFC Courts view themselves as active facilitators of global commerce, ready to deploy interim measures to protect the integrity of foreign arbitral processes. However, establishing jurisdiction is only the first hurdle; the substantive requirements for maintaining a freezing order remain exacting.
Claimants must be prepared to provide robust, compelling evidence of the risk of dissipation. The mere existence of a high-value award does not automatically trigger injunctive relief. The DIFC Courts have consistently maintained a high threshold for interim measures, a standard recently explored in ARB-010-2024: ARB 010/2024 Neven v Nole. In the present dispute, the defendant fiercely contested the necessity of the injunction. Following the initial ex parte order, the defendant launched a counter-offensive via Application No. ARB-050-2025/4 dated 5 January 2026, seeking to set aside the freezing order entirely. The defense strategy hinged on attacking the evidentiary basis of the dissipation risk. As recorded in the judgment: "The Defendant further asserted that there was and is no evidence that the Defendant had sought to dissipate his assets or that he had put forward his defence in the arbitration dishonestly."
To overcome this defense, Omanand relied on a multi-layered evidentiary narrative. The underlying arbitration turned on whether the defendant had executed personal guarantees, a point of fierce contention. The claimant argued that the Russian tribunal's findings regarding these guarantees, coupled with the sheer magnitude of the liability, created an inherent incentive to hide assets. Furthermore, Omanand had already taken preliminary steps onshore. Prior to the Final Award, the Claimant sought and obtained a Commercial Precautionary Seizure from the Dubai Courts to secure the Respondent’s assets in the UAE. This prior onshore action demonstrated a consistent, documented concern regarding asset preservation. Evaluating the totality of the circumstances, H.E. Justice Stewart KC found the claimant's evidence persuasive:
On that basis I consider that the Claimant has justified, to the requisite standard, the assertion that there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets
Beyond the evidentiary battleground, the ruling offers crucial guidance on the mechanics of maintaining a freezing order, particularly concerning the cross-undertaking in damages. A worldwide or domestic freezing order is a draconian remedy, and courts invariably require the applicant to provide security to compensate the respondent if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. Managing this security obligation can be a logistical nightmare for foreign claimants. Here, Omanand took a proactive approach to crystallize its obligations. The claimant filed an application to vary paragraph 2 of Schedule B of the Freezing Order, proposing to fortify its cross-undertaking by depositing USD 5 million directly into the DIFC Courts Escrow account.
Crucially, Omanand did not merely seek to deposit the funds; it sought a formal declaration from the Court that this payment constituted full and final compliance with its security obligations under the order. The defendant resisted this move, deploying the third witness statement of Zarghona Fasal in opposition to the Declaration Application. Despite the resistance, the Court granted the declaration. This aspect of the ruling is highly instructive. It demonstrates that the DIFC Court is willing to grant declarations regarding security obligations to facilitate the continuation of orders, providing claimants with much-needed certainty. By utilizing the Court's escrow facilities and obtaining a definitive ruling on compliance, practitioners can insulate their clients from subsequent collateral attacks alleging inadequate fortification of the cross-undertaking.
The final strategic takeaway concerns the allocation of costs in post-award interim applications. Freezing orders generate immense legal fees, particularly when they involve contested return dates, set-aside applications, and allegations of material non-disclosure. In this instance, the Court was tasked with reviewing the costs of the Applications and of the application for the Freezing Order following a flurry of filings in early January 2026. While the claimant successfully maintained the injunction (albeit limited geographically to the DIFC and the UAE), the Court declined to make an immediate costs award in Omanand's favor.
Instead, H.E. Justice Stewart KC adopted a pragmatic, forward-looking approach that ties the fate of the interim costs to the ultimate success of the enforcement action. On January 6, 2026, Omanand had formally issued proceedings under Claim No ARB-003-2026 for the recognition and enforcement of the Final Award. Because the freezing order is fundamentally ancillary to that primary enforcement vehicle, the justification for the injunction ultimately depends on whether the Russian award survives scrutiny under the DIFC Arbitration Law. Recognizing this dependency, the judge ruled:
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.
For practitioners, this costs ruling dictates a clear expectation: costs are likely to be reserved pending the final determination of the award's enforceability. Claimants must advise their clients that the financial burden of securing a freezing order will likely be borne out-of-pocket until the substantive enforcement proceedings conclude. Conversely, defendants can take solace in the fact that if they successfully resist recognition of the foreign award—perhaps on grounds of public policy or due process violations—they will be well-positioned to recover the costs expended in fighting the interim injunction.
Ultimately, the decision in Omanand v Ondrei maps the contours of the DIFC's evolving supportive jurisdiction. By confirming the broad reach of Article 15(4), demanding rigorous proof of dissipation risk, facilitating practical solutions for security undertakings, and aligning costs with the ultimate enforcement outcome, the Court has provided a sophisticated, predictable framework for securing assets in the wake of high-stakes international arbitration.
What Issues Remain Unresolved?
While H.E. Justice Roger Stewart KC’s ruling in Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050 provides immediate tactical relief for the Claimant, the judgment deliberately leaves the ultimate fate of the underlying USD 600 million arbitral award hanging in the balance. The continuation of the freezing order under Article 15(4) of the 2025 Court Law secures the perimeter, but the core battlefield remains the enforceability of the award itself. The DIFC Court of First Instance was careful not to pre-empt the outcome of the substantive enforcement proceedings, creating a bifurcated landscape where interim protection is robust but final recovery is entirely contingent on resolving profound factual and legal disputes. The Claimant has secured a powerful weapon in the form of a freezing order, but the target—actual realization of the arbitral debt—remains distant and heavily fortified by the Defendant's ongoing jurisdictional and substantive objections.
The central unresolved issue revolves around the very foundation of the Claimant's case: the validity of the personal guarantees that led to the massive arbitral award. The Defendant has fiercely contested the authenticity and binding nature of these instruments, arguing that the entire arbitral process was built on a flawed premise. The Court acknowledged this fundamental clash, noting that the entire edifice of the Claimant's enforcement strategy rests on these contested documents. The DIFC Court, acting in its supervisory and enforcement capacity, must eventually grapple with whether these guarantees can sustain the weight of a USD 600 million judgment in the face of sustained opposition.
At the core of this dispute is a fundamental issue – namely whether the Defendant did or did not enter into the personal guarantees upon which the Claimant’s claims against him, and the Final Award are based.
The Claimant's reliance on the Final Award as definitive proof of liability is a high-stakes gamble. As H.E. Justice Stewart observed, the Claimant leans heavily on the arbitral tribunal's findings to validate the guarantees. However, in the context of enforcement proceedings, particularly where fraud or fundamental procedural irregularities are alleged, the DIFC Court may be required to look behind the award, albeit within the strict confines of the grounds for refusal of recognition under the DIFC Arbitration Law.
The Claimant relies very heavily on the validity of those guarantees and prays in aid the existence of the Final Award as determining their existence and the consequent liability of the Defendant in a very large sum.
Because the enforceability of the Final Award remains an open question, the Court took a cautious approach to the allocation of costs. Rather than awarding costs to the successful party on the interim applications, the judge tethered the financial consequences of the interim skirmish to the ultimate outcome of the enforcement battle. This is a significant tactical marker, signaling that the Court views the interim victory as entirely provisional.
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.
This reservation of costs underscores the provisional nature of the relief granted. The Claimant has initiated parallel proceedings to enforce the award, a process that will undoubtedly invite further jurisdictional and substantive challenges from the Defendant. The timeline for these proceedings is critical. The Claimant issued proceedings under Claim No ARB-003-2026 for recognition and enforcement, setting the stage for the primary conflict. Until Claim No ARB-003-2026 is resolved, the freezing order acts merely as a holding pattern, preventing the dissipation of assets but offering no final resolution to the underlying debt.
The geographic scope of the freezing order presents another significant unresolved issue. The Claimant initially sought a worldwide freezing order (WFO), a draconian measure designed to cast a global net over the Defendant's assets. However, the Court ultimately restricted the order's application only in the DIFC and in the United Arab Emirates. This territorial limitation creates a critical vulnerability for the Claimant, particularly given the massive disparity between the value of the award and the assets currently identified.
This territorial limitation may be severely tested in the coming months. The Defendant's initial asset disclosure revealed significant wealth within the UAE, but also hinted at complex corporate structures that could span multiple jurisdictions. Crucially, the disclosed assets fall drastically short of the USD 600 million target.
The Defendant provided initial disclosure of his assets on 31 December 2025 disclosing just under AED 200 million in identified accounts as well as shareholdings in several corporate vehicles which he said that he was unable to value.
With only AED 200 million (approximately USD 54 million) explicitly identified, the Claimant faces a massive shortfall. If the Claimant identifies assets outside the UAE—perhaps held within those opaque corporate vehicles—the current freezing order will offer no protection. The Claimant would be forced to either return to the DIFC Court to seek an expansion of the order back to a worldwide scope or initiate fresh interim proceedings in foreign jurisdictions. This creates a fragmented enforcement landscape, a scenario frequently encountered in complex cross-border disputes, as analyzed in Oleksei v Olorun [2026] DIFC ARB 005, which grappled with the jurisdictional limits of precautionary measures in foreign-seated arbitrations. The burden will be on the Claimant to trace these assets globally without the benefit of a DIFC-backed WFO.
The interplay between the DIFC Court and other jurisdictions is further complicated by the origins of the Final Award and prior enforcement efforts. The award itself stems from a Russian arbitral institution, specifically the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. Enforcing a Russian arbitral award in the current geopolitical climate often introduces unique complexities, particularly regarding compliance, banking restrictions, and the potential involvement of sanctioned entities. While the judgment does not explicitly detail such issues here, the origin of the award adds a layer of friction to any cross-border enforcement strategy the Claimant might pursue.
Furthermore, the Claimant had already sought relief from the onshore Dubai Courts before approaching the DIFC. The Claimant obtained a Commercial Precautionary Seizure from the Dubai Courts to secure assets in the UAE. This dual-track strategy—securing onshore attachments while simultaneously pursuing DIFC freezing orders—raises questions about the coordination of parallel interim measures and the potential for conflicting judicial mandates between the onshore and offshore systems. The Defendant may attempt to leverage these parallel proceedings to argue that the DIFC order is oppressive or duplicative, forcing the Claimant to justify the necessity of maintaining injunctions in multiple UAE forums.
The Defendant's conduct and the ongoing risk of dissipation remain highly contentious. While the Court found sufficient grounds to maintain the freezing order, the Defendant vehemently denied any intention to hide assets or any dishonesty in the underlying arbitration. The battle over the narrative of the Defendant's conduct will be central to the ongoing enforcement proceedings.
The Defendant further asserted that there was and is no evidence that the Defendant had sought to dissipate his assets or that he had put forward his defence in the arbitration dishonestly.
Despite these assertions, H.E. Justice Stewart was persuaded that the risk was real, satisfying the threshold for interim relief by finding a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets. However, this finding is provisional. If the enforcement proceedings drag on, the Defendant may mount further challenges to the freezing order, arguing that the prolonged restraint on his assets is disproportionate or that the Claimant has failed to pursue enforcement with sufficient vigor. The requirement for the Claimant to fortify the cross-undertaking in damages by paying USD 5 million into the DIFC Courts Escrow account highlights the Court's recognition of the severe impact the freezing order has on the Defendant and the potential liability the Claimant faces if the enforcement ultimately fails.
The allegations of non-disclosure also cast a long shadow over the future of the litigation. The Defendant raised numerous complaints about the Claimant's conduct during the initial ex parte application, relying upon 9 alleged breaches of the duty of full and frank disclosure. While the Court dismissed the Set Aside Application on this occasion, the sheer volume of alleged breaches suggests a deeply adversarial relationship that will likely generate further procedural skirmishes. If new evidence emerges regarding the Claimant's presentation of the case, or if the Claimant fails to maintain the required standard of candor in future applications, the Defendant could renew attempts to discharge the order, potentially unraveling the Claimant's entire asset-preservation strategy.
Ultimately, the ruling in Omanand v Ondrei leaves the most critical questions unanswered. The DIFC Court has asserted its jurisdiction to hold the ring, but the main event—the battle over the USD 600 million award's enforceability—is only just beginning. The territorial limits of the freezing order, the complex interplay with onshore Dubai Courts and foreign jurisdictions, and the fundamental dispute over the underlying guarantees ensure that this litigation will remain a highly contested fixture on the DIFC docket. The Claimant has won the preliminary skirmish, but the war for the USD 600 million prize remains entirely unresolved.