ADGM Mandatory Regulations Override LCIA Rules, Allowing Court-Ordered Freezing Injunction

In a significant judgment, <span class="news-text_italic-underline">A30 and others v E30 and others [2025] ADGMCA 0003</span>, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“<span class="news-text_medium">ADGM</span>”) Court of Appeal has confirmed that the mandatory provisions of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015</span> take precedence over procedural restrictions contained in <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020</span>. As a result, the Court was able to grant a worldwide freezing order in support of an ongoing ADGM-seated arbitration, even though the applicants had not first sought permission from the arbitral tribunal.

A consortium of banks led by A30 financed a major development project under agreements requiring project proceeds to be paid into a designated collection account. Disputes later arose and although the parties had initially agreed to LCIA arbitration seated in Abu Dhabi, they subsequently agreed that the seat would be in the ADGM. Following adverse onshore Abu Dhabi court orders, funds were seized from A30’s account. The appellants sought repayment from the respondents, but no reimbursement was made. LCIA arbitration proceedings were commenced.

During the arbitration, evidence emerged suggesting that the respondents intended to divert project-related payments to accounts outside the designated collection account. The appellants therefore applied to the ADGM Court of First Instance (“<span class="news-text_medium">CFI</span>”) for a worldwide freezing order to prevent dissipation of assets. The CFI declined the application, finding that the appellants had breached Article 25.3 of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020</span>, which requires tribunal authorisation before approaching a court for interim relief. The appellants appealed to the ADGM Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Decision

1. <span class="news-text_medium">Mandatory ADGM arbitration provisions prevail:</span> The Court of Appeal held that section 31 of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">The ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015</span> expressly permits parties to apply to the ADGM Courts for interim measures before or during ADGM-seated arbitrations. These statutory rights apply notwithstanding any inconsistent provisions of arbitral rules chosen by the parties. The Court reinforced that the law of the seat imposes unwaivable mandatory provisions, consistent with English case law (<span class="news-text_italic-underline">A v B [2007]</span> and <span class="news-text_italic-underline">C v D [2007]</span>).
2. <span class="news-text_medium">Tribunal unable to act effectively:</span> Under section 31(6), ADGM courts may intervene only if the arbitral tribunal is unable to act effectively. This threshold was met because any application to the tribunal would have had to be made on notice; and a notified application would have created a real risk of asset dissipation.
3. <span class="news-text_medium">Relief granted:</span> The Court of Appeal overturned the CFI’s decision and granted a <span class="news-text_medium">worldwide freezing order</span> up to <span class="news-text_medium">USD 250 million</span> and an <span class="news-text_medium">order for the provision of information</span>.

Significance:

The ruling confirms that the ADGM courts retain robust supportive powers in arbitration, even where institutional rules impose procedural preconditions. The decision aligns ADGM practice with international standards for court assistance in urgent interim measures and enhances confidence in ADGM as a leading arbitration seat.