Securing a claim while proceedings are pending is one of the principal objectives of interim and precautionary measures, as awaiting the final determination of a dispute may place the enforceability of any eventual judgment at risk. However, achieving such protection does not necessarily require freezing the other party’s funds or requiring it to deposit the full amount in dispute with the Court, where the purpose of the measure can be achieved through alternative means that provide adequate protection for the potential claim.

This issue arose in the judgment of the QFC Civil and Commercial Court dated 18 June 2026 in Case No. CTFIC0037/2026, reported as [2026] QIC (F) 34.

The Court considered an application to vary an earlier order requiring the Defendants to deposit QAR 30 million with the Court. It ultimately varied that order, replacing the cash deposit with a combination of alternative security measures that it considered sufficient to achieve the purpose of the interim measure while avoiding the practical consequences associated with a cash deposit.

1. The Order Subject to the Application to Vary

An order had previously been made requiring the Defendants to deposit QAR 30 million with the Court pending determination of the underlying proceedings.

The purpose of the measure was not to retain the funds with the Court as an end in itself, but rather to protect the Applicant’s position by ensuring that assets or funds equivalent to QAR 30 million would remain available to satisfy any judgment ultimately entered in its favour.

Accordingly, in considering the application to vary the order, the Court focused on whether the same objective could be achieved through another means capable of providing adequate protection to the Applicant without requiring a cash deposit.

2. Practical Difficulties Associated with the Cash Deposit

In seeking to vary the order, the Defendants relied on the practical difficulties associated with making the cash deposit.

The First Defendant was subject to formal liquidation proceedings, while the group’s cash resources were centrally managed through its treasury arrangements. The Defendants explained that arranging and depositing QAR 30 million with the Court would require a number of internal and banking procedures, as well as coordination with the liquidator.

Against this background, the Court took into account the consequences that maintaining the cash deposit requirement could have, including potential difficulties affecting the liquidation process and the existing financial arrangements.

3. The Applicant’s Position

The Applicant opposed the variation of the order and maintained that the cash deposit should remain in place as a clear and direct means of securing its position. It also challenged the grounds relied upon by the Defendants in support of the proposed variation.

The Court, however, did not regard a cash deposit as the only means by which the intended protection could be achieved. Instead, it focused on the purpose for which the measure had been ordered and whether that purpose could be adequately achieved through alternative forms of security.

4. The Purpose of the Measure and the Means Used to Achieve It

The judgment draws a distinction between the purpose of an interim or precautionary measure and the means by which that purpose is achieved.

The purpose of the order was to ensure that value equivalent to QAR 30 million remained available, thereby protecting the Applicant’s position in the event that judgment was ultimately entered in its favour. The requirement to deposit the amount in cash with the Court was the means originally selected to provide that protection.

On that basis, the Court considered that, where adequate alternative security could preserve the same value and protect the Applicant’s position, there was no need to retain the cash deposit as the sole means of achieving the purpose of the order.

5. Alternative Security Measures Accepted by the Court

The Court ultimately varied the earlier order and replaced the cash deposit requirement with a combination of measures intended to preserve value equivalent to QAR 30 million.

First, the measures included the preservation of assets equivalent in value to the amount covered by the order, ensuring that sufficient assets remained available to satisfy any judgment ultimately entered in favour of the Applicant.

Second, the Court required the Defendants to implement internal arrangements within the group’s treasury system to identify and preserve value equivalent to QAR 30 million.

Third, the Court required the provision of a bank guarantee for the same amount issued by a reputable bank in Qatar.

The Court therefore maintained the level of financial protection intended by the original order while varying the means by which that protection was to be provided, rather than requiring the Defendants to deposit the full amount in cash with the Court.

Conclusion

The judgment in this case highlights the importance of considering the purpose of an interim or precautionary measure when determining the appropriate means of giving effect to it. On the facts of this case, the Court considered that protecting the potential claim did not necessarily require the amount covered by the measure to be deposited in cash with the Court, provided that adequate alternative security could achieve the same objective.

The judgment illustrates that the appropriate measure may require consideration of both the protection intended to be afforded to the applicant and the practical consequences for the party subject to the order, without diminishing the level of protection that the order is intended to provide.