Mandatory ADGM Regulations override LCIA Arbitration Rules, allowing court to grant freezing injunction (ADGM Court of Appeal)

This update was originally published on Practical Law Arbitration on 20 November 2025. It is reproduced with the permission of Thomson Reuters.

In A30 and others v E30 and others [2025] ADGMCA 0003, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court of Appeal confirmed that the mandatory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 can override the LCIA Arbitration Rules’ procedural restrictions, which require parties to obtain tribunal permission before applying for court-ordered interim measures. Therefore, the court allowed an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance and granted a worldwide freezing order in support of an ongoing ADGM arbitration.

The Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of Appeal (CoA) has confirmed that mandatory provisions of ADGM law allow it to override provisions of the LCIA arbitration rules and grant interim measures in ADGM-seated arbitrations.

The appellants, a consortium of banks led by A30, financed a major development project under an agreement, which required all proceeds to be paid into a designated collection account. The documents provided for LCIA arbitration seated in Abu Dhabi. It was later agreed that the seat would be in the ADGM. Following adverse payment orders issued by the Abu Dhabi onshore courts, funds were seized from A30’s account, and the appellants sought reimbursement from the respondents. When no repayment was made, the appellants commenced LCIA arbitration.

During the arbitration, evidence emerged that the respondents were intending to direct project-related payments to certain accounts abroad, rather than the designated collection account. Therefore, the appellants applied to the ADGM Court of First Instance (CFI) for a worldwide freezing order to prevent dissipation. However, the CFI declined to grant the relief requested, holding that the appellants had breached article 25.3 of the LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020 by applying to the court without first obtaining authorisation from the tribunal.

The appellants appealed to the CoA. The key issue was whether the absence of authorisation from the tribunal barred the application to the CFI.

The CoA allowed the appeal. It held that section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 expressly permits applications to the ADGM courts for interim relief, both before or during ADGM-seated arbitrations. This applies notwithstanding any contrary agreement by the parties, including through the adoption of institutional rules. The court can only act if the tribunal is unable to act effectively (section 31(6)), which was the case here because any application to it would have been on notice, creating a real risk of asset dissipation.

The CoA affirmed that the law of the seat imposes mandatory provisions, and those provisions cannot be ousted by agreement between the parties (see A v B [2007] EWHC 54 (Comm) and C v D [2007] EWHC 1541 (Comm)). Therefore, it overturned the CFI’s decision and granted a worldwide freezing order up to a value of USD250 million and a provision of information order.

The decision reinforces the ADGM’s pro-arbitration framework, which allows the courts to intervene in support and grant urgent interim measures, aligning with international best practice.

Case: A30 and others v E30 and others [2025] ADGMCA 0003 (30 September 2025). (This judgment has only recently become available.)