Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation (General Assembly), Request No. 5 of 2026 (Civil), decision of 29 June 2026
Under Article 322 of the Civil Procedure Law, where the judgment debtor is a private legal person the execution judge may order the detention of, or a travel ban against, its legal representative or another person, even without an execution title against that person, if that person engaged in abnormal conduct that directly or indirectly prevented or delayed execution, such as hiding or moving the debtor's assets or manipulating its accounts. Fraud is not required: mismanagement alone is enough, and the conduct may precede the execution title. The execution judge assesses this on the documents or after a brief inquiry, observing Articles 324 to 326 for travel bans.
The Second Commercial Chamber referred two conflicting lines of authority on when execution measures may be taken against the representative of a company that does not satisfy a judgment, under Article 322 of the Civil Procedure Law. The first line refused measures against a company's manager unless he had committed fraud, abuse of authority, or a breach of the law or the articles of association (the grounds of manager liability in Article 84 of the Commercial Companies Law), or unless a judgment or other instrument made him personally liable for the debt; a mere refusal to produce the company's financial records was not enough. The second line held that a representative's refusal to produce the financial statements in his possession, which would reveal the company's position and the movement of funds that should have paid the judgment debt, is itself a cause of preventing execution and justifies measures without proof of the Article 84 grounds.
The General Assembly read Article 322 (detention of the legal representative or another person where the failure to perform is attributable to them personally, and travel bans under Articles 324 to 326 even without an execution title against them, after an inquiry) with Article 320(1) (the brief inquiry before a detention order). It held that the test is whether the representative or third party engaged in abnormal conduct, whether amounting to fraud or simply mismanagement, which prevented or obstructed execution directly, by concealing or smuggling the debtor's assets, or indirectly, by manipulating the balance sheets and documents that should disclose the assets available for execution, whether that conduct occurred during execution or before the execution title was issued. The execution judge decides this on the supporting documents or his inquiry, provided his reasoning is sound, and must observe Articles 324 to 326 when imposing a travel ban. The General Assembly adopted this principle and set aside contrary ones.
Creditors enforcing judgments against companies in Abu Dhabi often find the company empty. This decision allows execution judges to reach the individuals behind the company, through detention or travel bans, without first suing them personally, where their conduct (including hiding records or poor management) frustrated enforcement. For managers and authorised signatories, it means personal exposure in execution proceedings does not depend on proof of fraud under the Companies Law.
| Articles 320(1), 322 and 324 to 326 of Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 (Civil Procedure Law) — text of articles 320, 322, 324, 325, 326 |
| Article 84 of the Commercial Companies Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021), as relied on by one line of authority — text of article 84 |
| Article 9 of Abu Dhabi Law No. 6 of 2024 on the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department |
“أن يكون قد أتى بتصرفات غير عادية سواء انطوت على الغش والتدليس أم مجرد سوء تدبير”Short quotation from the judgment as published by the court. The full judgment is on the court’s official service.
Entities wholly owned by the federal government are outside the Companies Law and litigate only before federal courts
Under Article 4(1)(b) of the Commercial Companies Law, companies wholly owned by the federal or a local government or their institutions, bodies or subsidiaries are exclu…
A claim that an Emirati partner's 51 per cent holding was nominal cannot be sent to arbitration
Arbitration may not be agreed on matters that cannot be the subject of compromise (Article 4(2) of the Federal Arbitration Law). A claim that a UAE national's 51 per cent…
Any LLC partner may seek the manager's removal for serious cause, but resolutions can be annulled only on three grounds
Any partner of a limited liability company, whatever the size of its holding, may ask the court to remove the manager if there are serious reasons, such as mismanagement,…
A partner's work cannot pay for a share in an LLC, so a share transfer made for services alone is void
Under Article 17 of the Commercial Companies Law (Federal Decree-Law No. 32 of 2021, corresponding to Article 17 of Federal Law No. 2 of 2015), the capital of a limited l…
A claim filed against a deceased person can be cured by joining the heirs; rescinded partnership refunds net of sums received
A claim or appeal brought against a person who had already died is not void beyond repair: it may be corrected by joining the heirs at the same level of court, by a memor…
Losing a lawsuit or complaint does not make the claimant liable for abuse of the right to litigate
A person who uses a right lawfully is not liable for resulting harm to others (Articles 104 to 106 of the Civil Transactions Law). Abuse exists only in the cases listed e…
Whether you are establishing a new venture, restructuring an existing enterprise, or exploring residency pathways — we are here to advise.
Arrange a Consultation →