How ADGM Courts compare and deploy interim remedies—from Worldwide Freezing Orders to disclosure orders and injunctions—to ensure proportionate and effective relief.
The ADGM Courts possess a broad suite of interim remedies to address urgent risks in commercial and arbitration disputes. These remedies are intended to preserve the status quo, prevent injustice, and support final adjudication. Among them, Worldwide Freezing Orders (WFOs) are often perceived as the most potent because they can restrain a respondent from disposing of assets across jurisdictions. However, WFOs are not always the most appropriate or proportionate remedy in every case. The ADGM Court Procedure Rules explicitly list freezing injunctions alongside other interim measures1, emphasising that the court may grant such relief only “in the interests of justice” and tailored to the circumstances of each case.
WFOs vs Disclosure Orders
At their core, Worldwide Freezing Orders and disclosure orders serve different purposes in ADGM interim applications. A WFO restrains asset dissipation, while a disclosure order compels a party to reveal information about asset location, identity, or ownership. Rule 71(1)(g) of the ADGM Court Procedure Rules authorises the court to make orders directing a party to provide information about assets that may be the subject of a freezing injunction, demonstrating that disclosure relief2 is an established ADGM remedy distinct from and often complementary to freezing relief.
Strategically, ADGM courts may favour initial disclosure orders to clarify the quantum, location, and control of assets before granting more intrusive relief. Disclosure orders can expose hidden structures or clarify whether assets exist in jurisdictions where enforcement might be sought, thereby strengthening a later WFO application. In situations where the applicant’s concern is uncertainty regarding assets rather than immediate dissipation, a disclosure order may be a proportionate first step. Where asset risk remains ambiguous after disclosure, freezing relief may then be justified with a solid evidentiary foundation.
WFOs vs Security for Costs
Security for costs3 is a different category of interim relief and addresses a different type of risk: a defendant’s concern about recovering legal costs if the claimant is unable to pay. Unlike WFOs, security for costs does not directly preserve assets for the enforcement of a substantive claim; it safeguards defendants against potential non-payment of costs. Security for costs applications are typically governed by broader common law principles and local procedural rules analogous to those found in Part 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules in other common law jurisdictions4.
Security for costs is often appropriate where the claimant lacks a sufficient connection to the jurisdiction or has limited financial wherewithal. ADGM Courts recognise that these applications raise distinct policy considerations: they protect defendants from an impoverished claimant, while freezing orders protect claimants from dissipation by solvent defendants. Confusing the two risks undermines the specificity of each remedy and may result in the dismissal of an improperly framed application.
WFOs vs Interim Injunctions
Interim injunctions in ADGM may restrain specific conduct such as preventing share transfers, contractual breaches, or asset disposal of particular items or categories. These more targeted injunctions contrast with the sweeping nature of a WFO, which may reach all assets up to a specified value and across multiple jurisdictions. Rule 71(1) of the ADGM Court Procedure Rules expressly contemplates both forms of relief within the umbrella of interim remedies.
The court’s approach emphasises proportionality: an injunction tailored to a discrete risk should be preferred where it sufficiently preserves the interests at stake. For example, where a dispute centres on the disposition of a specific parcel of shares or a particular contract, a narrowly drawn injunction may be less disruptive and more proportionate than a global freeze of all assets. Worldwide freezing orders carry broader commercial implications and can impede ongoing legitimate business operations if not justified by evidence of imminent dissipation risk.
When a WFO May Be Excessive
While Worldwide Freezing Orders are a powerful interim remedy, ADGM Courts will decline to grant them where they would be excessive, broadly framed without supporting evidence, or disproportionate to the asserted risk. The Court’s discretion to tailor relief is grounded in the principle that interim remedies must be necessary to protect the interests of justice, and not used as a blunt enforcement tool. Rule 71 empowers the Court to grant interim relief “in the interests of justice,” which inherently involves balancing competing interests, considering alternative remedies such as disclosure orders or narrower injunctions, and requiring the applicant to provide a mandatory cross-undertaking in damages to protect third parties. Proportionality remains central: relief must be no broader than necessary, and applicants must demonstrate a real risk of dissipation.
Excessiveness may arise where an applicant seeks global freezing of assets despite a lack of supporting evidence, or where alternative measures (such as targeted injunctions or disclosure orders) would sufficiently protect enforcement. Courts are also cautious about freezing assets necessary for ordinary business operations, absent a compelling showing of risk. Decisions such as A17 v B17 (ADGM CFI) and the English authority Fourie v Le Roux [2007] EWCA Civ 1273 illustrate that WFOs may be refused where there is no real dissipation risk and the order would be disproportionate.
Following grant, the order must be served promptly on the respondent and relevant third parties, and a return date or inter partes hearing should be scheduled, typically within 7–14 days, allowing the respondent to challenge the order on jurisdictional, disclosure, or proportionality grounds (PD7).
Combining Remedies Strategically
In practice, interim applications in ADGM are most effective when structured as a strategic combination of remedies. Applicants often seek disclosure relief to map asset structures and clarify potential enforcement avenues before seeking a freezing injunction. The ADGM Court’s rules expressly contemplate varied interim reliefs including freezing, disclosure, and search orders as part of a flexible toolkit.
In complex cases, practitioners may pursue phased relief: beginning with disclosure orders and targeted injunctions to build an evidentiary foundation and justify the necessity of a later Worldwide Freezing Order. In arbitration‑related matters, the ADGM Courts have demonstrated a clear willingness to grant interim relief in support of foreign arbitration and related enforcement proceedings, even where the underlying hearing is not seated in the ADGM. For example, in A17 v B17 & Others (2025)ADGMCFI 0001 , the ADGM Court of First Instance granted a WFO in aid of a cross‑border arbitration dispute, confirming that freezing relief can be sought in support of enforcement of an award obtained outside the ADGM.¹ More recently, in A30 and others v E30 and others[2025] ADGMCA 0003, the ADGM Court of Appeal reaffirmed that mandatory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations permit the Court to grant interim measures, including a WFO and provisions for information orders, in support of ADGM‑seated arbitration even over contrary arbitration‑rule mechanisms.² These decisions reflect that the ADGM Courts will intervene where necessary to preserve assets and assist arbitral processes, aligning with the statutory framework that expressly empowers court intervention where the tribunal cannot act effectively and where real risk of asset dissipation is demonstrated.
Comparison: WFOs, Search Orders, and Proprietary Injunctions
While all three remedies are interim measures, they serve distinct purposes in the ADGM:
Worldwide Freezing Orders (WFOs): Restrict a party from disposing of or dealing with assets, whether domestic or international, to prevent dissipation. WFOs require a good arguable case, a real risk of dissipation, and proportionality, and are generally used where the claimant seeks to preserve assets to satisfy a potential judgment.
Search Orders: Permit entry and inspection of premises, typically to preserve or gather evidence, prevent destruction, or locate assets. The ADGM CPR provides for equivalent relief, with strict evidentiary requirements and procedural safeguards to protect third parties, including advance judicial scrutiny and clear notice obligations.
Proprietary Injunctions: Protect a claimant’s ownership interest in specific assets, rather than a general debt claim. These injunctions have a lower evidentiary threshold than WFOs because they rest on a recognized property right, but the relief is narrower in scope, applying only to assets over which the claimant can show an existing proprietary interest.
This comparison highlights that while WFOs are broader and preventive, search orders focus on evidence preservation, and proprietary injunctions are ownership-specific, demonstrating that the ADGM Courts tailor remedies to the nature of the right being protected and the urgency of risk.
Choosing the correct interim remedy in the ADGM requires careful analysis of the risk at hand and a clear understanding of the available tools. Worldwide Freezing Orders are indispensable where there is credible evidence of imminent asset dissipation, but they are not universally appropriate. Disclosure orders, security for costs, and targeted interim injunctions each address distinct risks and, when combined strategically, can significantly enhance the effectiveness of an interim relief strategy. By grounding applications in Rule 71 and aligning the chosen remedy with the underlying risk, practitioners can secure relief that is both proportionate and tailored to the interests of justice.
