Worldwide Freezing Orders in ADGM: A Strategic Guide to Asset Protection and Enforcement

A comprehensive overview of worldwide freezing orders in ADGM, covering their legal basis, scope, enforcement, and strategic use in cross-border disputes.

Worldwide freezing orders (WFOs) represent one of the most potent interim remedies available to claimants in cross-border disputes. They enable parties to prevent respondents from dissipating assets located anywhere on the globe, creating an essential preservation mechanism before judgment or arbitral award enforcement. The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Courts have emerged as a critical jurisdiction for obtaining such orders, particularly following the transformative 2025 judgment in A17 v B17 & Others, which clarified and dramatically expanded ADGM’s jurisdiction to grant WFOs even in the absence of personal jurisdiction, defendant presence, or assets within the free zone. This development parallels the DIFC Court’s approach in Carmon Holdings Ltd & Others v Amman Insurance Company SAM, where the DIFC similarly affirmed its power to grant global freezing relief without requiring territorial nexus, establishing a robust precedent for regional acceptance of extraterritorial interim measures. 

This development is significant for international practitioners. As cross-border disputes become increasingly complex with parties scattered across multiple jurisdictions, assets concealed within corporate structures, and enforcement challenges mounting the availability of a sophisticated, common-law court willing to grant global asset preservation orders has become essential. ADGM’s emergence as a preferred jurisdiction for WFOs reflects a broader recognition that modern international commerce requires efficient interim remedies that can operate across borders. 

This article provides practitioners with a comprehensive strategic overview of worldwide freezing orders in ADGM, covering their legal foundation, when they can be sought, the governing test, enforcement mechanisms, and practical considerations for their effective deployment. 

What is a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO)? 

 A freezing order also known as a freezing injunction or Mareva injunction is an interim court order restraining a party from removing, dealing with, or disposing of assets. The order is not punitive; rather, it serves a protective function, preserving assets pending resolution of the underlying dispute and enforcement of any eventual judgment or award. A worldwide freezing order extends this restraint globally. Unlike a domestic freezing order (which restrains assets only within the jurisdiction), a WFO applies to assets located anywhere in the world. The order binds the respondent in personam that is, it constrains the respondent’s personal conduct and obligations, regardless of the location of their assets. 

What a freezing order does: 

• • Restrains the respondent from removing, transferring, pledging, or encumbering specified assets 

• • Requires disclosure of the respondent’s worldwide assets (typically above a specified threshold) 

• • May include carve-outs for ordinary business expenses, living costs, and legal fees 

• • Operates as an interim remedy, not a final judgment 

• • Creates potential contempt liability if breaches 

What a freezing order does not do: 

• • Transfer ownership of assets to the claimant 

• • Prejudge the underlying dispute 

• • Constitute execution or enforcement of a judgment (though it facilitates subsequent enforcement) 

• • Eliminate the respondent’s right to use assets for ordinary business or living needs 

Why WFOs Matter: The Asset Dissipation Problem 

Consider a practical scenario: A claimant wins a USD 100 million arbitration award against a respondent. However, by the time the award is obtained, the respondent has transferred assets to offshore shell companies, liquidated investments, pledged property to sympathetic lenders, or distributed cash to family members. The claimant’s award is now nearly worthless. 

A worldwide freezing order prevents this scenario by “freezing” the status quo. Assets remain in place, subject to disclosure, and available for enforcement once judgment is final. This is particularly critical in cross-border disputes where: 

• Asset flight risk is acute: Respondents with international operations can quickly move assets across borders 

• Enforcement is slow: Obtaining and enforcing judgments can take years; without a freeze, dissipation occurs before enforcement commences 

• Corporate structures obscure ownership: Complex holding companies, trusts, and nominee arrangements make asset recovery difficult post-judgment 

• Judgment execution requires identified assets: Without knowing where assets are located and ensuring they remain in place, execution is impossible 

Legal Basis for WFOs in ADGM 

ADGM Courts operate on a common law foundation, applying English law principles unless ADGM-specific legislation provides otherwise. This foundation is embedded in the ADGM’s founding legislation and Court Procedure Rules. 

1. ADGM Civil Evidence, Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulations 2015

The Regulations grant the ADGM Court of First Instance broad authority to grant interim remedies. Article 13(7)(d) provides that the court may “grant an injunction… in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so.” 

2. ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016 (CPR)

Rule 71(1)(f) explicitly empowers the court to grant “a freezing injunction… restraining a party from removing from a particular jurisdiction assets located within that jurisdiction or from dealing with or removing from ADGM or any other jurisdiction assets which are located there.” 

Rule 72(7)(a) extends this power further, permitting the court to grant interim remedies “in relation to proceedings which are taking place, will take place, or have taken place outside the jurisdiction.” This is critical because it enables ADGM to support foreign-seated arbitrations and foreign proceedings without requiring a direct nexus to ADGM. 

3. ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015

Section 41 of the Arbitration Regulations reinforces the Court’s power to grant interim measures in support of arbitration, including interim remedies to preserve assets. 

4. ADGM Practice Direction 7: Procedural Framework

Practice Direction 7 (“Applications”), updated in October 2025, provides the detailed procedural and substantive framework for freezing injunctions. Paragraphs 7.50–7.58 address freezing injections specifically, setting out: 

• Applicable forms (CFI 12A for pre-claim, CFI 12 for post-claim, CFI 1 for foreign proceedings) 

• Required evidence (affidavit evidence under Form CFI 14; not witness statements) 

• The three-part legal test (good arguable case, real risk of dissipation, just and convenient) 

• Standard form orders (Schedule A) 

• Procedures for without-notice applications, service, and variations   

Notably, paragraph 7.52 provides that WFOs “in respect of assets outside the jurisdiction should normally include wording to allow overseas branches of banks or similar institutions which have offices within the jurisdiction to comply with what they reasonably believe to be their obligations under the laws of the country where the assets are located or under any other applicable law.” This acknowledges the practical limits of extraterritorial enforcement while preserving the order’s effectiveness. 

When Can a Worldwide Freezing Order Be Sought? 

WFOs can be applied for at multiple stages of a dispute as detailed in PD 7, paragraphs 7.50–7.58, with specific form requirements codified as follows: 

1. Pre-Action (Before Litigation/Arbitration Commences)

An urgent freezing order can be sought before any claim is filed, provided the applicant undertakes to file a substantive claim within 2 days of the application. This is critical for situations involving imminent asset dissipation.  

2. During Litigation or Arbitration

Once a claim is filed or arbitration is ongoing, WFOs can be sought at any stage (early, mid-dispute, or post-award): 

3. Post-Award/Post-Judgment, Pre-Enforcement

This is perhaps the most common context. After obtaining an arbitral award or judgment, a claimant discovers the respondent has begun dissipating assets. A WFO can be sought to preserve assets pending enforcement. 

Core Legal Thresholds for Grant of a WFO 

The governing legal test for WFOs in ADGM is established in ADGM Practice Direction 7, paragraph 7.53, which requires the applicant to demonstrate: 

• Good arguable case (or serious issue to be tried) 

The applicant must demonstrate facts and law supporting a reasonably arguable claim on the merits. This is a lower threshold than proof on the balance of probabilities; rather, it requires a showing that the claim is serious and reasonably arguable. 

• Real risk of asset dissipation (judged objectively) 

This is typically the most hotly contested element. The applicant must demonstrate an objective risk that a future judgment will not be met because the respondent will unjustifiably dissipate assets through concealment, transfer, or disposal. 

• Just and convenient (discretionary balancing) 

Even if the applicant proves a good arguable case and real risk of dissipation, the court retains discretion to refuse the order if it is not “just and convenient” in all the circumstances. This involves fact-specific balancing. 

This test derives from English law principles, specifically Lakatamia Shipping Co Ltd v Morimoto [2019] EWCA Civ 2203, and has been consistently applied in ADGM precedents including Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Prasanth Manghat [2022] ADGMCFI 0007 and Sky Property Holdings Ltd v Corporate Sky Business Center L.T.D [2025] ADGMCFI 0021. 

Scope and Reach of ADGM WFOs 

DGM Worldwide Freezing Orders typically restrain respondents from dealing with assets wherever located, subject to customary exceptions for ordinary living and business expenses. In practice, WFOs frequently extend to bank accounts, shares, investment portfolios, receivables, and interests in subsidiaries or special purpose vehicles. 

The reach of these orders often intersects with beneficial ownership structures, requiring respondents to disclose assets held directly or indirectly. ADGM Courts routinely impose ancillary disclosure obligations, compelling respondents to provide sworn asset affidavits within strict timelines. 

Interaction with third parties, particularly banks and financial institutions, forms a critical component of WFO enforcement. While third parties are not directly bound unless served or subject to local jurisdiction, notification of a WFO often triggers compliance measures due to reputational and regulatory considerations.  

 In practice, once a WFO is granted, the applicant’s solicitors typically serve notice of the order on the respondent and on identified financial institutions (banks, brokers, trustees) holding or controlling the respondent’s assets. Service may be effected by email, courier, or personal delivery, and institutions are contractually obliged (through standard freezing order wording) to acknowledge receipt within 2–3 business days. Financial institutions are not parties to the injunction but are bound by the court’s order through the principle of contempt: failure to comply exposes them to judicial sanction. In reality, major financial institutions comply readily upon proper notice due to reputational and regulatory concerns, even if the respondent’s assets are held outside ADGM. The applicant’s enforcement counsel in foreign jurisdictions coordinates parallel notification procedures, and coordinated timing across multiple jurisdictions strengthens the practical effect of the freeze. 

Chabra Jurisdiction in ADGM 

Chabra jurisdiction refers to the court’s power to grant a freezing order against a third party who is not a substantive defendant, where there is good reason to believe that assets held by that third party are, in reality, controlled by or beneficially owned by the primary respondent. The doctrine takes its name from the English case TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra and has been absorbed into ADGM jurisprudence through its application of English common law principles. In the ADGM context, Chabra jurisdiction allows the court to look beyond formal legal ownership and focus instead on the economic reality of asset control, ensuring that freezing relief is not rendered ineffective by the use of corporate veils, nominee arrangements, or complex ownership structures. 

The relevance of Chabra jurisdiction in ADGM is particularly pronounced given the prevalence of multi-layered corporate groups, family office structures, trusts, and special purpose vehicles commonly used in regional and cross-border transactions. In many disputes, especially those involving shareholder conflicts, fraud allegations, or enforcement of arbitral awards, assets are rarely held directly in the respondent’s own name. Instead, they may be parked in subsidiaries, affiliates, or entities controlled through indirect shareholding or decision-making authority. ADGM Courts, applying common law reasoning, may grant freezing relief against such third-party entities where the applicant can demonstrate a strong case that the respondent exercises sufficient control over the assets and that there is a real risk those assets may be dissipated to frustrate enforcement. 

However, the exercise of Chabra jurisdiction by the ADGM Courts is not automatic and is subject to careful judicial scrutiny. The applicant must establish a good arguable case that the assets held by the third party are, in substance, the respondent’s assets, and that freezing those assets is just and convenient. The courts are mindful of the need to strike a balance between preventing abuse of corporate structures and protecting the legitimate interests of third parties who are not directly involved in the underlying dispute. As a result, ADGM Courts typically require cogent evidence of control or beneficial ownership and remain cautious to avoid granting overbroad or oppressive orders. When properly invoked, however, Chabra jurisdiction significantly enhances the effectiveness of worldwide freezing orders by preventing respondents from shielding assets behind artificial legal separations.   

An essential yet often underestimated aspect of obtaining a freezing order is the applicant’s obligation to provide an undertaking in damages. Under PD 7, para 7.56, the court will not grant a without-notice freezing order unless the applicant undertakes to compensate the respondent for any loss or damage caused by the order if it is subsequently found to have been wrongfully granted or discharged. This undertaking reflects the principle that interim relief, which interferes with the respondent’s proprietary rights pending final judgment, should not be granted without the applicant bearing the financial risk of error.  

The scope and amount of the undertaking are matters within the court’s discretion; in significant commercial disputes, undertakings may extend to substantial sums (sometimes secured by guarantee, bond, or deposit) to compensate for business disruption, reputational harm, or opportunity costs arising from the freezing order. The nature and extent of the undertaking should be addressed in the application materials and will be tailored to the specific circumstances, including the scale of the respondent’s potential exposure and the likelihood of dissipation 

Enforcement and Recognition Outside ADGM 

While ADGM WFOs have a worldwide scope, their enforcement outside the jurisdiction requires cooperation from foreign courts and authorities. Within the UAE mainland, enforcement is facilitated through judicial cooperation mechanisms and memoranda of understanding between ADGM Courts and onshore courts. In practice, claimants often seek mirror orders from onshore UAE courts to give effect to ADGM freezing relief against mainland-based assets. Internationally, enforcement depends on principles of comity and local procedural law, and WFOs frequently serve as a basis for seeking parallel relief in foreign jurisdictions. Despite their breadth, WFOs are not self-executing abroad. Their effectiveness ultimately depends on strategic coordination with enforcement counsel in relevant jurisdictions. 

The applicant must file the following materials with ADGM Courts: 

1. The application notice (CFI 12A for pre-action; CFI 12 for post-action; CFI 1 for foreign proceedings), with supporting statement of facts and law;  
2. Affidavit evidence (Form CFI 14) containing first-hand knowledge of the risk of dissipation, supporting documents, asset details, and relevant correspondence;  
3. A draft order in the form prescribed by PD 7, Schedule A; and 
4. Evidence of service or (for without-notice applications) confirmation that service is impracticable pending urgency. All materials must be filed in ADGM’s electronic case management system (ECMS) or, in exceptional circumstances, in hard copy. 

Limitation periods 

 For new disputes, the applicant’s substantive claim must be filed within six years (for contractual claims) or applicable statutory limitation periods. For enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the applicant should pursue recognition under the New York Convention 1958 (typically granted expeditiously) before seeking incidental freezing relief. The decision in A17 v B17 & Others clarifies that ADGM retains power to grant freezing relief in support of foreign proceedings irrespective of whether formal recognition proceedings are simultaneously pending, provided the applicant demonstrates the threshold requirements. Early filing of the application notice and comprehensive documentary evidence substantially enhances the court’s confidence in granting without-notice relief. 

Despite their breadth, WFOs are not self-executing abroad. Their effectiveness ultimately depends on strategic coordination with enforcement counsel in relevant jurisdictions. 

Strategic Use of WFOs in Arbitration and Commercial Disputes 

Arbitration users increasingly rely on ADGM WFOs to secure assets pending the outcome of proceedings, particularly where the arbitral seat lacks effective interim relief mechanisms. The ability to obtain freezing orders in support of foreign-seated arbitrations provides a significant tactical advantage. Compared to waiting for final enforcement, early deployment of WFOs can prevent dissipation, enhance settlement leverage, and preserve the economic value of claims. 

ADGM has established itself as a claimant-friendly yet balanced forum for granting Worldwide Freezing Orders, combining robust injunctive powers with principled judicial oversight. The effectiveness of WFOs, however, depends on careful strategy, compelling evidence, and strict compliance with procedural duties. For parties seeking to protect assets in complex, cross-border disputes, ADGM offers a sophisticated legal environment capable of delivering timely and impactful interim relief.