Construct.law - Spring 2026


Dubai Courts Enable Private Enforcement of Court Orders

By Maher Al Nashar

Construct.law - Spring 2026


Dubai Courts Enable Private Enforcement of Court Orders

By Maher Al Nashar


The Dubai Courts have introduced a notable new enforcement power with Decision No. 2 of 2026, which permits licensed private companies to carry out certain judicial enforcement procedures under court supervision. The move reflects Dubai's continued commitment to modernising its dispute resolution framework and strengthening the practical effectiveness of judgments, a critical pillar of investor confidence and legal certainty.


The Dubai Courts have introduced a notable new enforcement power with Decision No. 2 of 2026, which permits licensed private companies to carry out certain judicial enforcement procedures under court supervision. The move reflects Dubai's continued commitment to modernising its dispute resolution framework and strengthening the practical effectiveness of judgments, a critical pillar of investor confidence and legal certainty.

The decision in context

While enforcement has traditionally been the sole responsibility of court execution departments, the increasing sophistication of commercial disputes and asset structures has driven demand for more specialised operational capability. The new framework introduces a model allowing private sector expertise to support execution while courts retain full supervisory authority. Under the decision, licensed enforcement companies may assist with:

  • Asset identification and tracing.
  • Attachment and custody of movable and immovable property.
  • Sale of seized assets, including via public auction.
  • Transfer or delivery of assets to judgment creditors.

The scope is not closed and the courts retain discretion to outsource additional enforcement procedures as they see fit. Importantly, judicial control remains central. Enforcement agents must operate under the supervision of the competent execution judge and in accordance with the procedures set out in Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (the Civil Procedures Law). Agents are required to document their actions in prescribed formats, and they assume the responsibilities ordinarily vested in court execution officers, ensuring procedural integrity and legal safeguards are preserved.

The Nature and Purpose of Freezing Orders

The decision also establishes meaningful accountability measures. Enforcement agents must maintain strict confidentiality, act with integrity, and immediately report any obstacles, errors, or irregularities encountered during execution. They are prohibited from handling matters involving personal connections, including cases involving spouses or relatives, and may not use the courts' logo, claim to be government employees, or speak to the media about ongoing enforcement matters. The qualification requirements reflect the seriousness of the role. Enforcement agents must hold either a law degree with at least three years' relevant experience, or a master's in law with at least two years' experience. They must have clean records (no convictions for felonies or crimes of moral turpitude) and must pass a court-approved training programme. Before any agent commences work, their appointment must be vetted by the Execution Department to confirm they meet all requirements, though the courts retain discretion to waive the experience thresholds where circumstances warrant. Ongoing oversight is built into the framework. Licensed firms must submit periodic reports to the Execution Department detailing the files they have handled, the actions taken, amounts collected and disbursed, any obstacles encountered, and the status of seized assets. The Execution Department retains full inspection powers and it can review records, call in agents for questioning, and prepare reports on any procedural failures or breaches. Complaints from affected parties are investigated, and the Department can recommend corrective measures or escalate matters to the competent judge.

The decision in context

While enforcement has traditionally been the sole responsibility of court execution departments, the increasing sophistication of commercial disputes and asset structures has driven demand for more specialised operational capability. The new framework introduces a model allowing private sector expertise to support execution while courts retain full supervisory authority. Under the decision, licensed enforcement companies may assist with:

  • Asset identification and tracing.
  • Attachment and custody of movable and immovable property.
  • Sale of seized assets, including via public auction.
  • Transfer or delivery of assets to judgment creditors.

The scope is not closed and the courts retain discretion to outsource additional enforcement procedures as they see fit. Importantly, judicial control remains central. Enforcement agents must operate under the supervision of the competent execution judge and in accordance with the procedures set out in Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (the Civil Procedures Law). Agents are required to document their actions in prescribed formats, and they assume the responsibilities ordinarily vested in court execution officers, ensuring procedural integrity and legal safeguards are preserved.

The decision also establishes meaningful accountability measures. Enforcement agents must maintain strict confidentiality, act with integrity, and immediately report any obstacles, errors, or irregularities encountered during execution. They are prohibited from handling matters involving personal connections, including cases involving spouses or relatives, and may not use the courts' logo, claim to be government employees, or speak to the media about ongoing enforcement matters. The qualification requirements reflect the seriousness of the role. Enforcement agents must hold either a law degree with at least three years' relevant experience, or a master's in law with at least two years' experience. They must have clean records (no convictions for felonies or crimes of moral turpitude) and must pass a court-approved training programme. Before any agent commences work, their appointment must be vetted by the Execution Department to confirm they meet all requirements, though the courts retain discretion to waive the experience thresholds where circumstances warrant. Ongoing oversight is built into the framework. Licensed firms must submit periodic reports to the Execution Department detailing the files they have handled, the actions taken, amounts collected and disbursed, any obstacles encountered, and the status of seized assets. The Execution Department retains full inspection powers and it can review records, call in agents for questioning, and prepare reports on any procedural failures or breaches. Complaints from affected parties are investigated, and the Department can recommend corrective measures or escalate matters to the competent judge.

Effects going forward

This reform is likely to shape enforcement practice in several meaningful ways:

Enhanced efficiency

Specialist providers can streamline operational aspects of execution, potentially reducing timelines in complex matters.

Greater sophistication in enforcement

Private enforcement firms may bring investigative, financial, and logistical expertise that complements judicial processes.

Stronger commercial confidence

Reliable enforcement mechanisms are fundamental to attracting international investment and dispute resolution work.

Development of the enforcement ecosystem

We may see the development of a professional enforcement services sector supporting litigation, arbitration, and restructuring activity.

Effects going forward

This reform is likely to shape enforcement practice in several meaningful ways:

Enhanced efficiency

Specialist providers can streamline operational aspects of execution, potentially reducing timelines in complex matters.

Greater sophistication in enforcement

Private enforcement firms may bring investigative, financial, and logistical expertise that complements judicial processes.

Stronger commercial confidence

Reliable enforcement mechanisms are fundamental to attracting international investment and dispute resolution work.

Development of the enforcement ecosystem

We may see the development of a professional enforcement services sector supporting litigation, arbitration, and restructuring activity.

A forward-looking shift

The decision offers several clear positives. Operational flexibility can improve recovery timelines for successful litigants. Courts can focus on adjudication while specialised providers support execution logistics. Many other jurisdictions, such as France and parts of the US already incorporate private enforcement support mechanisms, and this reform aligns Dubai with this practice. Effective enforcement strengthens the Emirate's standing as a regional legal hub. Ultimately, Decision No. 2 of 2026 signals a pragmatic development rather than a radical departure. Judicial authority remains intact, but the operational model is adapting to meet the needs of a fast-moving commercial environment. For businesses, investors, and legal practitioners, the message is positive: Dubai continues to refine not only how disputes are resolved, but how judgments are turned into real-world outcomes.

A forward-looking shift

The decision offers several clear positives. Operational flexibility can improve recovery timelines for successful litigants. Courts can focus on adjudication while specialised providers support execution logistics. Many other jurisdictions, such as France and parts of the US already incorporate private enforcement support mechanisms, and this reform aligns Dubai with this practice. Effective enforcement strengthens the Emirate's standing as a regional legal hub. Ultimately, Decision No. 2 of 2026 signals a pragmatic development rather than a radical departure. Judicial authority remains intact, but the operational model is adapting to meet the needs of a fast-moving commercial environment. For businesses, investors, and legal practitioners, the message is positive: Dubai continues to refine not only how disputes are resolved, but how judgments are turned into real-world outcomes.

Continue reading from this series

England & Wales

01 TCC allows Building Liability Order based on an Adjudicator’s Decision and an ‘Anticipatory’ Building Liability Order

England & Wales

02 Retentions won’t be retained: UK Government plans to ban cash retentions

England & Wales

03 Providence v Hexagon: Supreme Court clarifies specified default and accrued rights of termination under a JCT Contract

England & Wales

04 Court confirms an assignee’s right to adjudicate a dispute under a construction contract: Paragon Group v FK Facades

England & Wales

05 Can a late Payment Notice be treated as a Pay Less Notice: Vision Construct v Gypcraft?

England & Wales

06 Members of joint ventures cannot unilaterally bring adjudication proceedings on behalf of their joint venture

England & Wales

07 Updates from the BSR: Latest data on the building control gateway regime for higher risk buildings and an alert on potential risks from transfer slabs in buildings

England & Wales

08 How is the UK Construction Industry Impacted by Modern Slavery?

England & Wales

09 Sharper teeth, more returns – Construction Industry Scheme tax reforms target fraud prevention and increase administration for contractors

International

01 FIDIC time bar bites – Privy Council holds clause 20.1 is a condition precedent

International

02 Notice Obligations under the New UAE Civil Code

International

03 United Arab Emirates issues a new Civil Transactions law

International

04 Applicability of the Doctrine of Force Majeure During Unprecedented Times in Bahrain

International

05 Freezing orders: how are they enforced around the world? United Arab Emirates (ADGM and DIFC) perspective

Cover

Keep reading

About the Construction, Engineering & Projects Group

Keep reading

Alumni • Legal Notices • Accessibility • Privacy Notice • Fraudulent or 'scam' communication • Complaints Procedure • Pricing Information

© Charles Russell Speechlys 2026. Solicitors Regulation Authority number 420625.