The question on appeal in A30 & Others v E30 & Others [2025] ADGMCA 0003 was whether the appellants, who are parties to an arbitration under the LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020 (the “LCIA Rules”) seated in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (“ADGM”), could obtain a worldwide freezing order under section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 (the “Arbitration Regulations”) without first obtaining authorisation from the tribunal under Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules.
The Court confirmed that the mandatory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 prevail over procedural restrictions in the LCIA Arbitration Rules 2020.
The decision is particularly relevant where an application must be made without notice to prevent assets from being dissipated. It confirms that the Court can provide protection where the tribunal cannot act effectively, while preserving the statutory limits on court intervention in arbitration.
The background
The dispute arose from financing arrangements for a development project. A consortium of banks, led by A30, provided facilities that included performance and retention guarantees. The arrangements required project receipts to be paid into a designated collection account with A30.
Following enforcement of the guarantees through the Abu Dhabi onshore courts, A30 sought reimbursement from the respondents. No payment was made, and the banks commenced LCIA arbitration. Although the agreements originally provided for a seat in Abu Dhabi, the parties subsequently agreed that the arbitration would be seated in ADGM.
The banks had already sought interim relief from the tribunal. An initial application was refused, but, following further evidence of a settlement, the tribunal ordered that payments by the project counterparty be made into the collection account.
The banks later obtained evidence of proposed instructions directing other project-related payments to accounts in Bahrain and Turkey. They applied to the ADGM Court for a worldwide freezing order.
The Court of First Instance decision
The difficulty arose under Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules. Article 25 deals with interim and conservatory measures. Article 25.3 provides:
“A party may apply to a competent state court or other legal authority for interim or conservatory measures that the Arbitral Tribunal would have power to order under Article 25.1: (i) before the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal; and (ii) after the formation of the Arbitral Tribunal, in exceptional cases and with the Tribunal’s authorisation until the final award….”
Before the tribunal is formed, this provision permits applications to a competent court for interim or conservatory measures. After its formation, it permits such applications in exceptional cases and with the tribunal’s authorisation. The banks had not obtained that authorisation.
The judge accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried and a real risk of dissipation. He nevertheless considered that granting relief would not be just because the application breached the parties’ agreement to follow the LCIA Rules.
The Court of Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal approached the issue through the law of the seat. Under section 9 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, the provisions identified in Schedule 2 are mandatory and apply “notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary”. Section 31, which governs the Court’s power to order interim measures, is expressly included in that Schedule.
Section 31(1) permits applications for interim measures before or during arbitration, and section 31(2) gives the Court the same interim powers in relation to arbitration as it has in court proceedings. Section 31(4) provides for urgent orders to preserve assets. These provisions form part of the legal framework within which the parties’ chosen procedural rules operate.
The LCIA Rules also recognise that framework. Article 14.2 provides that “the Arbitral Tribunal shall have the widest discretion to discharge these general duties, subject to the mandatory provisions of any applicable law”. The tribunal’s discretion is therefore subject to the mandatory provisions of applicable law.
The Court did not need to adopt a strained interpretation of Article 25.3 to accommodate the application. Its reasoning was that the contractual rules must operate subject to the mandatory law of the seat. A party relying on that law in circumstances permitted by section 31 could not be treated as acting in breach of contract merely because prior tribunal authorisation had not been obtained.
Why the tribunal could not act effectively
The mandatory nature of section 31 does not give parties unrestricted access to court relief. The requirement was met here because the application needed to be made without notice. Alerting the respondents could have prompted the very dissipation the banks sought to prevent. The tribunal could not grant the requested interim measures without giving the affected parties notice and therefore could not provide effective protection in those circumstances.
The distinction matters. A tribunal may have the power to preserve assets and still be unable to act effectively where the procedure it must follow would undermine the relief sought. The need for court assistance depends on that practical difficulty; urgency alone does not remove the requirement to satisfy section 31(6).
The appeal was allowed, and a worldwide freezing order was granted up to USD 250 million. Because A30 alone provided the required undertakings, the order was made for its benefit only.
Practical considerations
For counsel, the decision makes the explanation for approaching the Court directly particularly important. An application should identify the threatened movement of assets, explain why protection is needed urgently, and address why the tribunal cannot provide effective relief. Where notice would defeat the application, the evidence should explain that risk specifically.
The prior applications to the tribunal also deserve attention. They show why counsel should distinguish the protection already sought or obtained in arbitration from the protection now required from the Court. An application should explain what has changed and why the existing arbitral process cannot address the present risk effectively.
For parties selecting ADGM as their seat, the judgment illustrates the importance of considering the Arbitration Regulations alongside the institutional rules. The rules govern the agreed procedure within a statutory framework that preserves the Court’s supporting powers. Those powers can be decisive where assets may otherwise disappear before an award can be enforced.
A30 confirms that an agreed requirement for tribunal permission cannot prevent the Court from exercising its mandatory powers where the statutory conditions are met. Its practical significance lies in preserving access to effective interim protection while leaving the underlying dispute for determination in arbitration.
For advice on interim relief in ADGM arbitrations, including urgent applications to protect assets and the powers of the ADGM Courts, please reach out to Merline Dsouza at merline@alsuwaidi.ae