Hi Stefan, I’m glad you found the blog interesting. In relation to your first question, it is difficult to say what evidence will be accepted as satisfying the prima facie test of a threat of dissipation or loss of assets. We have seen UAE courts accept payment certificates as satisfying proof of debt, and the applicant’s bare submission that the payment certificate amounts have not been paid as satisfying a prima facie threat of loss or dissipation sufficient to justify granting of an attachment order. Conversely, we have seen attachment orders rejected where the defendant acknowledged the debt is due and payable, but failed to pay without excuse, and where prima facie questions of insolvency were evident. We have anecdotal evidence that the Dubai courts may now be applying a more stringent test than previously. Because the test is prima facie only, the applicant should have the advantage, and an applicant should ensure it can present evidence of the outstanding debt and threat in as straightforward a manner as possible. You should be able to find a range of UAE judgments that may be of assistance. As for your second question, applicants must commence a substantive proceeding in relation to the claimed debt no later than eight days from the date an attachment order has been granted (Article 255 of the UAE Civil Procedure Code). The purpose of this provision, as you say, is to prevent this procedure from being exploited by unscrupulous applicants – namely by ensuring the underlying merit of the applicant’s claim is assessed in a timely manner. In practice however abuse is still possible, and for instance where the substantive contractual claim between parties is subject to an arbitration agreement, an unscrupulous applicant might obtain an attachment order in the UAE courts that will remain without having the underlying merits assessed until the final arbitral award. I would be happy to discuss further, Robbie.