Interim Relief in ADGM-Seated Arbitrations: Mandatory Rules Prevail

In A30 & Ors v E30 & Ors [2025] ADGMCA 0003, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court of Appeal expressly confirmed that in the context of granting interim relief (in this instance, a worldwide freezing order), the mandatory provisions of the law of the seat (ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015) prevailed over the applicable institutional rules (the London Court of International Arbitration Rules (LCIA Rules)).

What you need to know

For ADGM-seated arbitrations, the ADGM Courts can order urgent interim relief even in cases where the applicable procedural rules would otherwise require first seeking permission from the tribunal.

It is a welcome confirmation that interim relief will be available where there is genuine urgency and the arbitral tribunal cannot practically act in time; for example, where a freezing order is sought on an urgent basis to prevent assets being dissipated.

The Court of Appeal decision reinforces the ADGM's efforts to be seen as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction that is aligned with internationally recognised practice. Selecting the ADGM as the seat of arbitration gives parties an assurance that they can seek swift, court-supervised interim remedies, underscoring the importance of seat selection at the drafting stage.

Background

The dispute arises from financing and security arrangements connected to a development project in which the appellants financed and guaranteed obligations, including performance and retention guarantees, with an overarching Common Terms Agreement (CTA) and related assignment and pledge arrangements. In summary, the CTA required that payments received under the underlying construction contract and related insurance proceeds be paid into a designated collection account. After payment orders were issued against A30 by the Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (ADJD) and enforced via the UAE Central Bank, A30 sought reimbursement from the respondents and later commenced an LCIA arbitration seated in ADGM.

Interim relief was first refused by the arbitral tribunal but, after new evidence of settlement flows emerged, the tribunal later ordered that payments from the project be paid into the collection account. The appellants then obtained evidence suggesting that proceeds under subcontractor guarantees, expected from a third party bank, might be diverted to accounts in Bahrain and Turkey, contrary to the CTA’s remittance obligations and raising a risk of dissipation. Against that background, the appellants applied urgently to the ADGM Court of First Instance for a worldwide freezing order.

The core question the Court had to grapple with was whether the Court could issue a freezing order in support of arbitral proceedings under section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations without first obtaining tribunal authorisation. Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules provides that only in "exceptional circumstances" can a party apply to a court for interim measures once the tribunal has been formed and in such cases, the tribunal's prior authorisation is required. The Court of First Instance declined to grant the relief on the basis that proceeding without the tribunal's authorisation (as required by Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules) would constitute a breach of contract.

The decision

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ultimately granted the freezing order holding that the mandatory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations prevail over any inconsistent procedural stipulations in the parties’ chosen institutional rules.

• First, the Court reaffirmed that ADGM Courts have power to grant worldwide freezing orders both under the ADGM Courts framework and under section 31 of the Arbitration Regulations in support of arbitration, aligning with prior ADGM authorities. The applicable test requires a serious issue to be tried, a real risk of dissipation that could frustrate satisfaction of a future award, and that it be just and convenient to grant relief.
• Secondly, the Court explained that sections 8 and 9 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations make Part 3 applicable to ADGM seated arbitrations and designate certain provisions as mandatory in Schedule 2, including section 31, which is to have effect “notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.” Section 31(1)–(2) the ADGM Arbitration Regulations confirms that an arbitration agreement does not preclude court interim measures and equips the Court with the same power as in court proceedings; section 31(4) allows orders in cases of urgency; and, crucially, section 31(6) confines court action to circumstances where the tribunal is unable to act effectively. In this case, the Court of Appeal found that condition was satisfied on the basis that an urgent, without notice application was necessary to preserve assets pending an arbitral award.
• Thirdly, the Court harmonised LCIA Rules with the law of the seat by relying on LCIA Article 14(2), which expressly subjects the tribunal’s conduct of the arbitration to the mandatory provisions of any applicable law, and by invoking the principle that agreement on the seat is analogous to an exclusive jurisdiction clause (the mandatory provisions of which cannot be contracted out of). On this analysis, proceeding without Article 25.3 authorisation in circumstances where section 31 applies is not a breach of contract, because the mandatory law of the seat overrides contrary procedural limitations in institutional rules.

Implications

This decision provides clear guidance that, for arbitrations seated in the ADGM, the Court’s interim relief jurisdiction under mandatory section 31 is available in urgent cases where the tribunal cannot act effectively (for example, because notice would compromise asset preservation), notwithstanding a stipulation in any applicable institutional rules to the contrary. Parties drafting arbitration agreements should recognise that choosing an LCIA arbitration with an ADGM seat carries with it a court supervised interim relief regime that cannot be ousted by institutional rules or party agreement.

Other author: Kate Dyson, Trainee Solicitor