ADGM Court has jurisdiction to issue anti-suit injunctions to restrain a party from pursuing onshore Abu Dhabi proceedings

*Reproduced from Practical Law with the permission of the publishers. For further information visit www.practicallaw.com.

In A22 and B22 v C22 [2025] ADGMCFI 0018, the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance confirmed its jurisdiction to grant an anti-suit injunction restraining a party to an arbitration agreement from pursuing proceedings in the onshore Abu Dhabi courts. However, on the facts, the court declined to grant the injunction requested.

On 13 August 2025, the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance (Court) confirmed its jurisdiction to grant anti-suit injunctions (ASIs), including to restrain proceedings in the Abu Dhabi onshore courts. However, it declined to grant relief on the facts.

The dispute arose from an insurance claim by a contractor (D22) made to its insurer (C22) and linked to damage sustained during the transportation of heavy equipment for a Saudi oilfield project. D22 engaged A22 as a marine warranty surveyor, initially under a letter of intent and later under a service order. The service order incorporated D22's general terms and conditions, which included an ICC arbitration clause providing for an Abu Dhabi seat. B22, a related company, was not a party to the service order.

After indemnifying D22, C22 commenced proceedings in the Abu Dhabi onshore courts to recover the payout from A22 and B22. In response, A22 and B22 applied to the court for an ASI, claiming the dispute was subject to an arbitration agreement.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction to grant ASIs where it is “just and convenient” to do so under section 41 of the ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence, Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulations 2015. This includes injunctions to restrain the pursuit of proceedings in the onshore Abu Dhabi courts.

However, the court declined to exercise its power, finding that the applicants had not shown a “high degree of probability” that a valid arbitration agreement existed. In particular, it queried whether the arbitration clause in D22's general terms was properly incorporated into the service order, which was signed nearly a year after the incident giving rise to the insurance claim. The court also questioned whether the clause could govern a dispute arising from that incident and highlighted that B22 was not party to the service order.

The court was also critical of the applicants' delay in seeking relief. The ASI application was made only after an adverse expert panel report in the onshore proceedings, making it appear opportunistic rather than timely. In addition, the court underscored the principle of judicial comity, particularly in circumstances where the parties had actively participated in the onshore proceedings since 2024 and judgment was imminent.

The decision confirms the ADGM court's authority to grant ASIs, including in relation to Abu Dhabi onshore proceedings. However, that relief will only be granted where contractual, legal and procedural thresholds are clearly met.

Case: A22 and B22 v C22 [2025] ADGMCFI 0018 (13 August 2025) (Justice Paul Heath KC).