On 23 January 2026, the President of Dubai Courts issued Dubai Decision No. 2/2026 (the “Decision”) establishing an operational framework permitting the outsourcing of certain judicial execution procedures to licensed private establishments.
The Decision does not amend the substantive execution regime under Federal Decree-Law No. 42/2022 (Civil Procedure Law). Rather, it reorganises how execution activities may be carried out in practice, introducing a supervised hybrid model that combines judicial control with private operational capacity.
A. The Scope of Outsourcing: Administrative Execution Under Judicial Control
Article 3 of the Decision delineates, with specificity, the execution procedures that may be outsourced to licensed establishments. These include the identification and inventory of movable and immovable assets and funds subject to attachment, the receipt and safeguarding of attached property, the sale of such assets by public auction, and the implementation of procedures for transferring possession of executed assets or delivering them to the execution applicant to enable actual possession. The Courts also retain discretion to outsource additional execution procedures in accordance with the Civil Procedure Law, this Decision, and the legislation in force in the Emirate.
Notably, the provision confines outsourcing to the operational stages of enforcement. Judicial authority remains unaffected. Orders of attachment, sale approvals, and enforcement directions continue to emanate from the Execution Judge. The delegation is therefore functional rather than adjudicative, preserving judicial control while permitting administrative flexibility.
B. The Execution Officer: From Logistical Actor to Regulated Legal Function
The Decision integrates the Execution Officer into the statutory execution framework. Although employed by a licensed private establishment, the officer must conduct execution strictly in accordance with the Civil Procedure Law and exercise the same duties and powers attributed to a General Execution Officer. All procedures must be recorded in approved forms, ensuring procedural traceability.
Article 7 further underscores the professional nature of the role. Execution Officers must possess either a law degree with at least three years’ relevant experience, or a master’s in law with at least two years’ experience, maintain a clean criminal record, demonstrate medical fitness, and successfully complete court-approved training. Appointment is subject to verification by the Execution Department, which may exercise discretion regarding experience requirements.
The role is therefore not administrative outsourcing in a commercial sense; it is regulated delegation within a controlled legal environment. The Execution Officer operates as a supervised extension of the execution system rather than as an independent enforcement actor.
C. Supervision, Reporting and Compliance Controls
Article 9 imposes periodic reporting obligations on licensed establishments. Reports must detail execution files handled, procedures undertaken, amounts collected and disbursed pursuant to judicial orders, obstacles encountered, and the status of attached or sold assets. This creates an audit trail within the execution process.
Article 10 reinforces institutional supervision. The Execution Department retains authority to inspect records, request additional documentation, summon officers for clarification, review procedural compliance, and prepare corrective reports where violations are identified. Complaints submitted by affected parties are assessed within this supervisory framework.
D. Ethical Safeguards and Institutional Protection
The Decision also establishes clear ethical boundaries. Execution Officers are subject to strict confidentiality obligations and conflict-of-interest restrictions. They are prohibited from acting in matters involving personal connections, from exerting improper pressure, from misrepresenting their status as government employees, and from engaging publicly in relation to execution matters.
These safeguards serve two purposes: protecting the rights of parties involved in enforcement proceedings and preserving public confidence in the judicial system.
E. Practical Significance for Enforcement Practice
By introducing a structured outsourcing framework, Dubai Courts appear to be addressing operational capacity while maintaining judicial supervision. In complex commercial matters, particularly those involving multiple assets or logistical coordination, specialised operational support may improve execution timelines.
For guidance on the framework introduced under Dubai Decision No. 2/2026 and its implications for judicial execution procedures in Dubai, please contact the author, Merline Dsouza at merline@alsuwaidi.ae.