ADGM Courts decide they have jurisdiction to issue worldwide freezing orders

Worldwide freezing orders are an important part of the international litigation and arbitration landscape, allowing parties seeking to enforce a judgment or award to prevent the disbursement of assets located overseas. However, until recently, it was unclear whether such orders were available in the ADGM courts. The position has now been clarified following the Court of First Instance judgment in A17 v B17 & Anors [2025] ADGMCFI 0001.  Justice Sir Andrew Smith found that the ADGM Courts have the express power to award worldwide freezing orders in support of enforcement proceedings.

A17 v B17

The dispute underlying this decision arose out of London seated LCIA proceedings between an onshore Abu Dhabi based company ("A17"), and two Cypriot companies ("B17" and "C17" – together the "Respondents"). Following receipt of an award of USD 149 million in its favour, A17 obtained a worldwide freezing order against the Respondents. The Respondents challenged the ADGM Courts' jurisdiction to issue the order.

The Court affirmed that the ADGM's jurisdiction is statutory in nature and, in accordance with Article 13 of its founding law (Law No. 4 of 2013 as amended by Law No. 12 of 2020), the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction to consider and decide matters, including where it has jurisdiction under the Global Market Regulations, or where the parties agreed in writing to resolve a claim through the Courts.

A17 argued that the Courts did in fact have jurisdiction to issue a worldwide freezing order pursuant to the ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulations 2015, which are "Global Market Regulations" within the meaning of the Founding Law. Such Regulations set out (among other things) at Section 41 that the Court of First Instance may "grant an injunction … in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so". Additionally, A17 argued that the ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016 specify at Rule 71 that the "Court may grant such interim remedies as are necessary in the interest of justice (whether in the particular case or more generally) including …(f) an order (referred to as a "freezing injunction") restraining a party from removing from a particular jurisdiction assets located within that jurisdiction …".

The Respondents argued that the ADGM Courts had no jurisdiction to award a worldwide freezing order over Cypriot companies as freezing orders operate in personam rather than in rem, and therefore the court needed to have in personam jurisdiction to grant such orders (i.e. the court must have personal jurisdiction over the party against whom an order is made by virtue of the domicile of that party, or the party must have assets within the court's jurisdiction).  In addition, they argued that the provisions relied upon by A17 are to be narrowly interpreted and do not on such interpretation give the ADGM Courts jurisdiction to make a worldwide freezing order. The Respondent's relied on certain judgments of the courts of England and Wales in support of these arguments.

The Courts' Decision

While the court agreed with the Respondents' argument that the English courts exercise caution in respect of making worldwide freezing orders in absence of in personam jurisdiction, it emphasized that, unlike the English courts, the jurisdiction of the ADGM Courts is not predicated upon personal jurisdiction or service of proceedings in the ADGM.

Additionally, the court referred to the DIFC Courts' decision in Carmon Reestrutura v Antonio Joao Catetet Lope Cuenda [2024] DIFC CA 003, in which the DIFC Court found that it had jurisdiction to grant interim remedies in respect of foreign proceedings, even where no nexus exists between the case and its parties and the DIFC. In that decision, the DIFC Court referred to its jurisdiction to determine "any claim or action over which the Courts have jurisdiction in accordance with DIFC Laws and DIFC Regulations" and said that the Rules of the DIFC Court (which are considered to be DIFC Regulations as per Article 5A(1) of the Judicial Authority Law (DIFC Law No. 12 of 2004)) expressly permit the DIFC Courts to issue interim remedies in support of foreign proceedings.

The ADGM Courts noted that the provisions under DIFC Law and ADGM Law on this point are analogous, and the decision in Carmon was therefore persuasive and to be adopted in resolving the question of the ADGM Courts' jurisdiction to issue worldwide freezing orders. In particular, the court expressed alignment with the following positions from Carmon:

• "the absence of the power to issue a freezing order in respect of a prospective foreign judgment may result in the jurisdiction of this Court to recognise the foreign judgment ultimately issued being thwarted”; and
• "the approach to be taken by this Court in considering the jurisdiction and powers of the DIFC Courts must have regard to the function and purpose of those Courts. They are statutory courts integral to the operation of the DIFC as a Financial Free Zone … The DIFC Courts are part of a growing network of international commercial courts in a number of jurisdictions around the world. Where their jurisdiction and powers are amenable to constructions supporting the rule of law in transnational trade and commerce, such constructions are to be preferred".

The ADGM Courts explained that these observations are also applicable in the ADGM, being a freezone court designed (pursuant to its founding law) to be an "effective contributor to the international financial services industry". To that end, the court noted that the power to make worldwide freezing orders "is a natural ancillary power to the Court's jurisdiction (and duty) to recognize and enforce New York Convention arbitration awards".

Additionally, in closing, the ADGM Courts expressed that, in light of the DIFC Courts being "the other common law Court of a Financial Free Zone of the UAE" it was appropriate to align with the DIFC for reasons of comity, unless good reasons necessitated a different approach (for instance if an alternative approach was provided for in ADGM law).

As a result, the court upheld A17's worldwide freezing order against the Respondents and affirmed its jurisdiction to award interim remedies in support of international enforcement proceedings.

Impact of the Court's Decision

The ADGM Court's decision is a welcome clarification of the position on interim remedies within the ADGM and should provide comfort to international parties that may seek recovery of assets located in the freezone.

The decision, and the alignment of the ADGM and DIFC Courts on this issue, also reinforces the UAE's growing reputation as a centre for arbitration, with courts that are willing to take a pro-arbitration approach to the issues before them.