The ADGM Court of Appeal has confirmed that the mandatory provisions of the seat of arbitration override contrary provisions in institutional rules of arbitration, granting a worldwide freezing order of up to USD 250 million in support of a pending LCIA arbitration. The ruling in A30 Others v E30 Others (ADGMCA 0003), handed down on 30 September 2025, overturned a decision of the Court of First Instance.
The dispute arose from a project finance arrangement in which several banks had extended financing on the condition that all proceeds flow through a designated collection account. After the respondents failed to reimburse sums seized from the appellants' accounts by order of the Abu Dhabi onshore courts, the appellants commenced LCIA arbitration in September 2022. They subsequently learned that the respondents intended to divert payments to foreign accounts rather than the designated collection account, and applied urgently to the ADGM Courts for freezing relief.
The first-instance refusal
The Court of First Instance declined to grant the application. It found that the appellants had acted in breach of contract by failing to obtain the arbitral tribunal's authorization, as required by Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules 2020. That provision allows a party to apply to a court for interim measures, once a tribunal is constituted, only "in exceptional cases and with the Tribunal's authorisation."
The appeal ruling
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that Section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, which permits parties to apply to the court for interim measures "before or during the arbitral proceedings," is a mandatory provision under Section 9 of those Regulations and therefore "has effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary." On that basis, parties may apply directly to the court without first securing the tribunal's authorization under the LCIA Rules.
The Court emphasised that the tribunal was "unable to act effectively" because it could not grant interim measures on a without-notice basis under Section 31(6) of the Regulations. It also noted that Article 14(2) of the LCIA Rules itself recognises that the tribunal's discretion is "subject to the mandatory provisions of any applicable law." The Court concluded that a party invoking a mandatory provision of the seat, without having complied with Article 25.3, could not be said to be acting in breach of contract.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies the interaction between institutional rules and the mandatory law of the seat where interim relief is concerned. For arbitrations seated in the ADGM, it confirms that the court's power to grant interim measures under the Arbitration Regulations operates independently of contractual restrictions in the chosen rules of arbitration, and remains available even after the tribunal has been constituted.