Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050 (22 January 2026)

Omanand v Ondrei [2026] DIFC ARB 050 (22 January 2026)

The DIFC Court has jurisdiction under Article 15(4) Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 to grant interim measures, including freezing orders, in support of foreign arbitral awards. There is a good arguable case that the Defendant signed the guarantees and, if so, a real risk of asset dissipation exists. The freezing order is justified but should be limited to assets within the DIFC and UAE. Variation of fortification from guarantee to escrow payment is appropriate. Alleged breaches of disclosure and undertakings are not material.

Citation
[2026] DIFC ARB 050
Parties
Claimant: Omanand; Defendant: Ondrei
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
22 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Related Proceedings / Post Award, Applications for Freezing Order, Continuation, Variation, and Set Aside
Outcome
Freezing order varied and continued within DIFC and UAE; declaration application granted; set aside application dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Jurisdiction, Asset Dissipation, Full and Frank Disclosure, Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
Arbitration Civil Procedure Commercial Law Freezing Orders Jurisdiction Asset Dissipation Full and Frank Disclosure Enforcement of Arbitral Awards

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omanand

Claimant

Ondrei

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Related Proceedings / Post Award, Applications for Freezing Order, Continuation, Variation, and Set Aside

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Jurisdiction to grant freezing order post-arbitral award
  2. 2 Risk of dissipation of assets
  3. 3 Compliance with duty of full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

The DIFC Court has jurisdiction under Article 15(4) Dubai Law No. 2 of 2025 to grant interim measures, including freezing orders, in support of foreign arbitral awards. There is a good arguable case that the Defendant signed the guarantees and, if so, a real risk of asset dissipation exists. The freezing order is justified but should be limited to assets within the DIFC and UAE. Variation of fortification from guarantee to escrow payment is appropriate. Alleged breaches of disclosure and undertakings are not material.

Court Disposition

Freezing order varied and continued within DIFC and UAE; declaration application granted; set aside application dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Freezing Order varied to apply only in DIFC and UAE, continued until further order.
  • Declaration Application granted regarding fortification.