You Need the Documents From Your DIFC Case for Another Proceeding

If you hold documents or witness statements the other side produced under a DIFC order, and you now want them in a foreign court, an arbitration or an asset-recovery claim, you need the Court's permission before you send them anywhere. The restriction is called collateral use: under Rule 28.64 of the Rules of the DIFC Courts (RDC) a party to whom a document has been produced may use it only for the purpose of the proceedings in which it was produced, subject to three exceptions. The permission has to be defined. The DIFC Court has refused to release disclosed documents for undefined civil proceedings in any jurisdiction, and no permission order is a licence to publish.

Sort your material into categories first, because the restrictions come from different places and release differently.

Do I need the DIFC Court's permission for collateral use of disclosed documents?

Yes, unless one of the three exceptions in RDC 28.64 already covers what you intend. The exceptions are a document read to or by the Court, or referred to, at a public hearing, then the Court's permission, then the agreement of both the producing party and the owner. That last one needs two consents, and they are not always the same person. The public-hearing limb is narrower than it reads, and in the Techteryx consequential order the judge noted the difficulty in the words "read by the Court", which might extend to all a judge reads in preparation.

Two further rules stop the exception working as a general release. Under RDC 28.65 the Court may restrict or prohibit the use of a produced document even where it was read to or by the Court, or referred to, at a public hearing, and under RDC 28.66 that application may be made by a party or by any person to whom the document belongs. Making a case public does not dispense with permission for everything produced in it.

In Techteryx the Court lifted the privacy over the proceedings and ordered that all hearings and judgments be treated as held in public, then decided the collateral use application separately and granted less than was sought.

Are documents, witness statements and undertakings restricted in the same way?

No. Different instruments restrict different things, each with its own release route, so a permission drafted for one does not cover the others. Produced documents fall under RDC 28.64 and witness statements under RDC 29.60. Who consents matters, because a party cannot release its own witness's statement by agreement with the other side.

Affidavits and exhibits sit in a gap, because Part 29 does not extend Rule 29.60 to affidavits in terms, so name the classes expressly rather than argue later about what a bare reference to documents covered. The permission in Techteryx covered documents, witness evidence including affidavits, witness statements and their exhibits, and information disclosed by or on behalf of the first defendant. When the producing party said "witness evidence" might not reach expert reports, the Court held that an expert report is clearly witness evidence.

The third instrument is the order itself, with any undertaking you gave to obtain it. In Techteryx the producing party observed that the exception in the freezing order related to the use of information rather than documents, a point the Court held went nowhere on those facts, and the claimant had separately undertaken not to use information obtained in the proceedings for any civil or criminal proceedings, in the DIFC or elsewhere, without permission. Order and undertaking bite independently of RDC 28.64. Arbitration adds a fourth layer. Under Article 38 of the DIAC Rules 2022 the parties and the tribunal keep awards, orders and material produced in the arbitration confidential as a general principle, so far as it is not already in the public domain, except where disclosure is required by legal duty, to protect or pursue a legal right, or to enforce or challenge an award before a state court or other judicial authority. In Lunars v Liuns the Court treated that exception as covering use of arbitral disclosure to bring a claim.

The cards below restate how each release actually works.

What did the Court permit, and what did it refuse?

It permitted use in identified proceedings and refused the open-ended parts. The claimant in Techteryx Ltd v Aria Commodities DMCC and others, DEC 001/2025, already had express permission to use the produced documents in two named Hong Kong actions and a named arbitration, and had given the undertaking described above. By an application issued on 17 September 2025 it sought permission to use documents, witness evidence and information disclosed by the first defendant for civil proceedings in any other jurisdiction in support of or related to those proceedings, including recognition or enforcement of any judgment and any other claims brought to recover its assets, and for assisting government agency enquiries concerning, amongst other things, onward dealings with the money.

The producing party did not oppose permission in principle. It said the claimant should identify the proceedings it intended to use the material in rather than obtain a general and unqualified permission, and annexed its own draft order, deleting the open-ended words. The Court held the material was described clearly enough without a document-by-document schedule. It then refused the two open limbs, holding that use in undefined civil proceedings in any jurisdiction, and an order allowing use in assisting government agency enquiries concerning, amongst other things, onward dealings, were too wide and too vague. It made the order in the narrower terms the producing party had itself put forward, which still permitted assistance to government agency enquiries about onward dealings with the identified remittances, and restored the usual saving for the privilege against self-incrimination. It recorded that the claimant could apply again in writing, without notice if necessary, if further proceedings were proposed to preserve assets.

Key takeaway. The decision is not whether your material may ever leave the case. It is which words go in the order. In Techteryx permission framed around named proceedings and a described class of material was granted, and permission framed around "any other jurisdiction" and "amongst other things" was refused as too wide and too vague. That was a discretion exercised on those facts, and effectively the same open wording had been granted in Byju's Alpha, which the judge declined to treat as wrong in principle.

What does the Court look for before it permits collateral use?

Special circumstances first, then necessity and proportionality, then the absence of unfairness to the producing party. The Techteryx order records the distillation of the principles by the Court in Byju's Alpha Inc v Raveendran [2025] DIFC CFI 050, decided on 26 August 2025 after an analysis of the English authorities on the identically worded English rule, and treats it as the applicable statement.

Permission requires special circumstances, which need not be exceptional but must amount to cogent and persuasive reasons. The recognised examples are cross-jurisdictional efforts to recover assets allegedly dissipated through conduct properly characterised as dishonest or fraudulent, the public interest in pursuing serious cross-border fraud, ensuring every court has a full and accurate picture rather than a one-sided one, avoiding a conflict of professional duties for lawyers who could not otherwise correct inconsistencies between two courts, and letting courts assess credibility on all the evidence. Necessity means what is reasonably required to achieve a legitimate legal objective, not what is indispensable. The use must be necessary and proportionate and must not cause unfairness or prejudice to the disclosing party. No rule requires a schedule itemising each document, provided the material is described with sufficient clarity and specificity for the Court to identify the scope of the permission. The approach is pragmatic and incremental.

The incremental element is the part applicants underestimate. In Techteryx the Court noted that permission already existed for use in public Hong Kong proceedings, which might itself be a gateway into the public domain, and held that this did not remove the need for necessity and proportionality in the further permission sought.

How is a collateral use application made?

As an ordinary application in the DIFC proceedings, supported by evidence and ideally listed with matters already before the Court.

1. List the material and, against each item, the instrument that restricts it: the production, the order it was given under, any undertaking you gave, and any confidentiality order.
2. Check whether an exception already applies, and record the reason, because RDC 28.65 still allows a later restriction.
3. Describe the material by origin and context rather than by itemised schedule: who produced it, the proceedings it came from, and the classes covered, naming documents, witness statements, affidavits, exhibits, expert reports and information separately.
4. Name the destination proceedings and the purpose, including recognition or enforcement, and say which special circumstances you rely on.
5. Offer the safeguards before they are demanded: the self-incrimination saving, confidentiality undertakings from the receiving lawyers, a limit on onward recipients.
6. Issue the application with a witness statement exhibiting the controlling orders and the draft permission, and ask for it to be heard with any hearing already listed.
7. Settle the order in terms a foreign court can read without explanation, and record what was released and to whom.
8. Return for a further defined permission when a new proceeding appears, rather than reading the first order widely.

On timing, treat the published sequence as indicative. In Techteryx the application was issued on 17 September 2025, heard with other consequential matters on 2 October and decided by reasons issued on 8 October. Riding on a hearing already listed, a few weeks from issue to decision is a reasonable expectation. Needing its own listing, expect longer and expect the costs of a contested application.

How will the producing party oppose the application?

Not usually by resisting in principle, which rarely succeeds against a genuine cross-border recovery claim, but by attacking the definition and the conditions. The producing party in Techteryx conceded the principle, put forward its own draft order and ended up with it.

The points that carried weight were specific. The proceedings in which the material would be used were not identified, so the permission would have been general and unqualified. One limb was expressed as assisting government agency enquiries concerning, amongst other things, onward dealings, which left no boundary. And the self-incrimination saving had been removed on the footing that the DIFC has no criminal jurisdiction, which stopped being an answer once the material was to be used in jurisdictions that do.

Standing is wider than the parties. Under RDC 28.66 a non-party whose records are in someone else's production can apply to restrict or prohibit use itself. And if the production never happened there is nothing to release. In Lunars the Court refused pre-action disclosure, holding that it cannot be granted while the dispute is already before an arbitral tribunal and that in any event the classes sought were wide and unfocused, and the permission under RDC 28.64 fell with it.

Common mistake. Treating the material as yours once it reaches your file. Possession is not ownership, and the producing party's rights and your own undertaking survive the order. Sending a bundle to a foreign lawyer before the permission is settled is the one step that cannot be undone.

What do parties in this position get wrong?

Reading those two decisions beside the rules, the striking thing is how little the argument turns on the merits of the foreign claim and how much on the drafting of the order. The applicant that described the material by where it came from, and named the proceedings it was going to, was given the permission in those terms. The parts struck out were those drafted to avoid having to come back. The other recurring error is treating the restriction as a single rule. A party can comply with RDC 28.64 and still breach the freezing order's use exception, the undertaking given to obtain it, or the confidentiality of the arbitration the material came from.

The cards below restate what a permission order does and does not change.

The rules and decisions cited were fetched from the DIFC Courts and the Dubai International Arbitration Centre on 3 October 2026. The rule pages carry no consolidation date, only a print stamp, so currency rests on the live text as fetched. A bounded search of the published decisions in DEC 001/2025 found five further orders between 3 April and 8 September 2026, on non-party disclosure, service, legal expenses, the adjournment of a committal hearing and costs. None varies the collateral use permission, and the order of 3 April 2026 applies the same restriction to the fresh disclosure. That is a search of published decisions, not a review of the court file. The 26 August 2025 decision in Byju's Alpha is not published on the website on a bounded search, so the principles above are taken from the Court's own record of them in the Techteryx order.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I send documents the other side disclosed to my lawyers in a foreign case? Not without permission or agreement. RDC 28.64 permits use for the purpose of the proceedings in which the document was produced, and a different case is a different purpose. Instructing the team acting for you in the DIFC case is within the rule. Instructing lawyers running another claim is collateral use.

Does a public hearing release everything in the bundle? No. The exception covers a document read to or by the Court, or referred to, at a hearing held in public, and RDC 28.65 lets the Court restrict use even then. In Techteryx the Court lifted the privacy over the whole proceedings and still decided the collateral use application separately, granting less than was sought.

Do I have to schedule every document I want to use? No. The DIFC Court has held that no rule requires a schedule itemising each document, provided the material is described with enough clarity and specificity for the Court to identify the scope of the permission. Describing it by the party who produced it and the proceedings it came from has been accepted.

Can I get permission covering any proceeding I might later bring? Not as a blanket release. In Techteryx the Court refused use in undefined civil proceedings in any jurisdiction and said instead that the claimant could apply again, in writing and without notice if necessary, when a further proceeding was proposed to preserve assets.

Is a witness statement treated like a produced document? No. It has its own rule, RDC 29.60, and its own consent-giver, the witness, so the party that served the statement cannot release it by agreement with the other side. Draft the permission to spell out the classes, as the order in Techteryx did with documents, witness evidence including affidavits, witness statements and their exhibits, and information, rather than rely on a bare reference to documents.

Can I hand the material to a regulator or a criminal investigation? Only on terms the Court defines. In Techteryx the limb about assisting government agency enquiries concerning, amongst other things, onward dealings was refused as too wide and too vague, but the narrower order the Court went on to make kept assistance to government agency enquiries about onward dealings with the identified remittances. Before permitting that wider use it restored the saving for the privilege against self-incrimination, which had been deleted at the without-notice stage on the footing that the DIFC has no criminal jurisdiction.

What should I do if the material has already been used? Take advice at once and put it before the Court in the application. Use outside the rule is a breach of it whether or not anyone has complained, and the evidence should state plainly what was sent, to whom and why, because the Court weighs unfairness and prejudice to the party that produced the material.

Does permission mean the documents are now mine? No. It is a defined release from a use restriction for identified proceedings and purposes. Ownership does not move, any confidentiality or anonymity order continues, an undertaking you gave to obtain disclosure continues, and nothing in the order permits publication.

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice on your specific situation.

Related Guides

See the Dubai and DIFC court disputes section and these related guides.

• The other side is withholding documents in a DIFC case
• A privileged advice email was disclosed in a DIFC case
• The debtor is moving assets and a freezing order is needed

Related Guides

Our DIFC Court disputes page covers jurisdiction, service, default judgment and setting aside, immediate judgment, disclosure, costs and appeals under the Rules of the DIFC Courts.

• A DIFC Contempt Application Names You and a Director: How Do You Answer It?
• The Other Side Is Withholding Documents in Your DIFC Case
• Your Lawyer's Advice Email Was Disclosed in a DIFC Case