Trafigura PTE LTD (2) Trafigura India PTV LTD v (1) Mr Prateek Gupta (2) Mrs Ginni Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001 (22 September 2025)

Trafigura PTE LTD (2) Trafigura India PTV LTD v (1) Mr Prateek Gupta (2) Mrs Ginni Gupta [2025] DIFC CA 001 (22 September 2025)

The DIFC Court of Appeal held that Article (15)4 of the 2025 Court Law does not impose a territorial limitation requiring assets to be within the DIFC for the grant of freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings. The Court's jurisdiction and power to grant interim relief, including freezing orders, remains materially unchanged from previous statutes, and the statutory language permits such orders where enforcement is sought in the DIFC, regardless of asset location.

Citation
[2025] DIFC CA 001
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Trafigura Pte Ltd; Claimant/appellant: Trafigura India Ptv Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Mr Prateek Gupta; Defendant/respondent: Mrs Ginni Gupta
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
22 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Jurisdiction, Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure International Enforcement Injunctions Freezing Orders Jurisdiction Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Interim Relief

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trafigura Pte Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Trafigura India Ptv Ltd

Claimant/appellant

Mr Prateek Gupta

Defendant/respondent

Mrs Ginni Gupta

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the DIFC Court have jurisdiction under the 2025 Court Law to grant freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings where assets are outside the DIFC?
  2. 2 Does Article (15)4 of the 2025 Court Law permit precautionary measures for assets not located within the DIFC?
  3. 3 Has the jurisdiction of the DIFC Court been narrowed by the 2025 Court Law compared to previous statutes?

Ratio Decidendi

The DIFC Court of Appeal held that Article (15)4 of the 2025 Court Law does not impose a territorial limitation requiring assets to be within the DIFC for the grant of freezing orders in support of foreign proceedings. The Court's jurisdiction and power to grant interim relief, including freezing orders, remains materially unchanged from previous statutes, and the statutory language permits such orders where enforcement is sought in the DIFC, regardless of asset location.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The Appeal is allowed.
  • Respondents to pay costs of the adjourned appeal hearing on Ground 1, to be assessed by the Registrar if not agreed.