Precautionary Attachment Procedures under the Executive Regulations of the UAE Civil Procedures Law

Precautionary Attachment Procedures under the Executive Regulations of the UAE Civil Procedures Law

Federal Law No. 11 of 2005 on Civil Procedures grants creditors, under Article 252, the right to request precautionary attachment (provisional seizure) of the debtor’s movable or immovable assets. This may be done either before the competent court hearing the main case or through the summary judge, depending on the circumstances. The attachment is allowed in specific situations where there is a genuine risk of the creditor losing security for their claim. Examples include:

• The debtor has no stable residence in the UAE.
• The creditor fears that the debtor may flee the country, smuggle, or conceal assets.
• The securities or guarantees for the debt are at risk of being lost.

The primary objective of such attachment is to prevent the debtor from disposing of the attached assets until the creditor obtains an enforceable judgment.

Amendments Introduced by the Executive Regulations (as of 9 December 2018)

The Executive Regulations introduced several procedural changes. Notably, Article 111(1)(b) now requires the creditor to present serious evidence when the request is based on fears that the debtor might flee, smuggle, or conceal assets. The petition must include substantiated claims such as:

• The debtor has already terminated their residency or plans to leave the country.
• The debtor is liquidating or selling significant assets.
• The debtor is closing down their business operations.

Failure to include such justifications will render the petition deficient under the new procedural framework.

The court has wide discretionary powers to assess whether these fears are justified and whether sufficient evidence exists. The decision is based solely on the apparent facts submitted and does not affect the merits of the underlying claim. As the order is temporary, the Court of Cassation has no authority to review the trial court’s judgment in this regard. The court may also request additional documents, sworn statements, or conduct brief investigations before granting the order.

Other Situations Where Attachment Is Permitted Without Fear of Loss

Under Articles 111(3) and 111(4) of the Executive Regulations, the creditor may obtain precautionary attachment even without demonstrating fear of losing their rights, provided that:

• The creditor holds an official deed proving a due and unconditional debt, or
• The creditor holds a non-final judgment establishing a debt of a definite amount.

Unlike Article 254(2) of the Civil Procedures Law, which obliges the judge to grant the attachment if the above conditions are met, the Regulations provide the judge with discretion to grant or reject such requests—opening a debate on whether the judge’s decision is discretionary or mandatory.

Special Provision for Employees

A new provision introduced in the Regulations grants employees the right to obtain precautionary attachment if no amicable settlement is reached regarding their legally due entitlements. The only requirement is that the amount is preliminarily assessed by the Ministry of Human Resources, allowing the employee to secure the employer’s assets without proving risk of non-payment—a measure clearly intended to protect workers’ rights and increase employer accountability.

Post-Attachment Procedures

Article 114 of the Regulations requires the creditor, in cases where the attachment is ordered by the summary judge, to file a substantive claim before the competent court within eight days from the date of the attachment order. Failure to do so will render the attachment null and void.

This represents a significant easing of the original requirement under Article 255(2) of the Civil Procedures Law, which demanded a separate claim for confirming the validity of the attachment. Now, the creditor only needs to initiate the claim on the merits (in court or arbitration) without a separate suit confirming the attachment.

Notably, the Regulations shifted the starting date of the eight-day period to the date of the order issuance, rather than the actual attachment date—easing the burden on creditors who may not be immediately aware of the attachment’s execution date.

Objection to Attachment Orders

Article 114(3) of the Regulations grants only the debtor (the party whose assets were seized) the right to object to the attachment order before the summary judge—whether based on substance or timing. This is a departure from earlier practices that allowed both parties to file objections under the general rule stated in Article 141(1) of the Civil Procedures Law.

Furthermore, if the main claim had already been filed before the attachment order, then, under Article 114(4), any objection must be filed before the same court—regardless of the stage of proceedings (including appeal)—and must be adjudicated urgently.

Conclusion

The Executive Regulations have introduced substantial reforms aimed at enhancing creditor protections while streamlining procedural burdens. However, certain discrepancies between the Regulations and the Civil Procedures Law—particularly regarding judicial discretion versus obligation—suggest a need for further legislative alignment to avoid interpretational conflicts.