The ADGM Courts offer a robust and arbitration-friendly framework for granting Worldwide Freezing Orders to protect assets at every stage of the arbitral process. Whether sought before an award is rendered or after enforcement becomes imminent, these orders can be a decisive tool to prevent frustration of arbitral justice.
As international arbitration continues to dominate the resolution of high-value commercial disputes, the ability to secure assets pending the outcome of arbitral proceedings has become a critical strategic consideration. Worldwide Freezing Orders (“WFOs”) issued by the ADGM Courts have emerged as a powerful tool in this context, enabling parties to preserve assets before an award is rendered and to protect the efficacy of enforcement thereafter. This article examines how WFOs operate in support of arbitration, the legal basis for such relief in the ADGM, and the strategic advantages they offer over reliance on courts at the arbitral seat.
Interim Relief in Support of Arbitration
The ADGM Courts possess clear statutory authority to grant interim relief in aid of arbitration, including freezing orders, even where the arbitration is seated outside the ADGM. This authority is grounded in Article 29 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015, and is procedurally exercised pursuant to CPR Part 25, read together with Practice Direction 7 (Interim Remedies and Applications), which governs the form, evidentiary requirements, urgency, and disclosure obligations applicable to freezing order applications. These provisions collectively mirror the UNCITRAL Model Law framework and reflect the ADGM’s express commitment to facilitating effective arbitration by ensuring that arbitral proceedings and awards are not undermined by asset dissipation.
Procedurally, the availability of such relief is reinforced by CPR Part 25, which permits interim remedies where the court considers it just and convenient to do so. Importantly, the ADGM Courts have made clear that their jurisdiction to grant freezing orders is not dependent on the arbitration being seated in the ADGM or even in the UAE. What matters is whether the Court can establish a sufficient jurisdictional gateway over the respondent and whether the relief sought is genuinely ancillary to legitimate arbitral proceedings, rather than an attempt to pre-empt or bypass the arbitral process. There is no prescribed limitation period for seeking such interim relief; however, any unexplained delay may undermine assertions of urgency and the existence of a real risk of dissipation. This framework allows claimants to approach the ADGM Courts as a neutral forum for urgent asset-preservation measures, particularly where arbitral tribunals lack coercive powers or where delay would render eventual relief ineffective.
Pre-Award Use of Worldwide Freezing Orders
Pre-award WFOs are most commonly sought where there is credible evidence that a respondent may dissipate assets to frustrate the enforcement of a future arbitral award. In such cases, the applicant is not seeking to enforce an existing right but to preserve the integrity of the arbitral process itself. The ADGM Courts apply the same core thresholds in arbitration-support cases as they do in litigation-based freezing orders, namely:
- a good arguable case on the merits of the underlying claim,
- a real risk of asset dissipation, and
- a determination that granting relief is just and convenient.
However, the courts are particularly sensitive to proportionality in pre-award scenarios, given that liability has not yet been finally determined. As a result, pre-award freezing orders are often tightly scoped, with asset caps, disclosure obligations, and return dates designed to minimise undue prejudice to the respondent. From a strategic standpoint, the availability of pre-award WFOs in the ADGM can significantly alter the balance of power in arbitration, especially where the seat court is slow to grant interim relief or lacks jurisdiction over offshore assets.
Post-Award Freezing Orders and Enforcement Support
Post-award WFOs play a distinct but equally important role in the enforcement lifecycle. Once an arbitral award has been issued, the risk of asset dissipation often intensifies as the losing party anticipates enforcement proceedings. In this interim window between the making of the award and its execution, the ADGM Courts are empowered to grant freezing relief under Article 29 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015, read together with CPR r 25.2(3), to preserve assets pending recognition and enforcement. Where enforcement is pursued in the UAE mainland or abroad, such recognition is typically sought in accordance with the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which has been given effect in the UAE; freezing orders in this context serve to ensure that the award creditor’s rights are not rendered illusory during the recognition process.
The ADGM Courts’ authority to grant such relief is grounded not only in the Arbitration Regulations but also in their broader enforcement jurisdiction under the ADGM Courts Regulations. Where an award creditor can demonstrate a genuine and bona fide intention to enforce the arbitral award, whether in the ADGM, the UAE mainland, or abroad, the Court may grant freezing relief to prevent deliberate asset flight. While there is no prescribed limitation period for seeking post-award freezing relief under the ADGM framework, the application must be made within a reasonable time after the award is rendered, and courts will closely examine any unexplained delay as undermining urgency and the asserted risk of dissipation, particularly where enforcement steps have not yet been initiated.
Post-award Worldwide Freezing Orders are often viewed more favourably by courts, as the existence of a final arbitral award materially strengthens the applicant’s position and reduces concerns about premature interference with the merits of the dispute. Nevertheless, the ADGM Court will continue to scrutinise the scope, necessity, and proportionality of the relief sought, particularly where enforcement is intended to take place in another jurisdiction. From a procedural perspective, applications for freezing relief whether pre-award or post-award are typically brought by way of an Application Notice (Form CFI 12 or Form CFI 12A, depending on the context), supported by sworn evidence in Form CFI 14, with the proposed freezing order set out in Form CFI 37 (Schedule A – Freezing Order). The distinction between pre-award and post-award applications is therefore substantive rather than formal, with the same procedural framework applied but assessed against differing evidentiary and proportionality considerations.
ADGM’s Pro-Arbitration Stance
The ADGM has deliberately positioned itself as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, combining a modern arbitration statute, a common law judiciary, and procedural flexibility. The courts’ willingness to grant freezing orders in support of arbitration reflects this broader policy objective. Several features underscore this pro-arbitration stance:
- alignment with the UNCITRAL Model Law,
- readiness to assist foreign-seated arbitrations,
- minimal interference with tribunal autonomy, and
- emphasis on effectiveness of final awards.
Unlike some seat courts, which may be reluctant to grant intrusive interim relief absent express statutory authority, the ADGM Courts have embraced their supportive role, particularly where asset preservation is essential to prevent an award from becoming a hollow victory.
Strategic Advantages Over Seat Courts
In practice, parties often prefer seeking freezing orders from the ADGM Courts rather than from courts at the arbitral seat. This preference is driven by several strategic advantages.
While the ADGM Court Procedure Rules do not prescribe a fixed time period within which a freezing order must be granted, practice under CPR Part 25 and Practice Direction 7 demonstrates a strong emphasis on urgency and responsiveness. In genuinely urgent cases—particularly ex parte applications where notice would defeat the purpose of the relief—applications are frequently listed on the same day or the following business day after filing, subject to the completeness of the evidence and availability of a judge. Where urgency is less acute, inter partes applications are typically heard within a short, court-directed timeframe rather than weeks or months. This procedural flexibility allows the ADGM Courts to respond swiftly to asset-flight risks, reinforcing their attractiveness as a forum for interim relief where timing is critical. Additionally, the ADGM’s geographic and legal positioning within the UAE allows claimants to leverage enforcement pathways into the UAE mainland, making freezing orders practically effective even when arbitration is seated elsewhere.
Worldwide Freezing Orders issued by the ADGM Courts have become a cornerstone of modern arbitration strategy, offering parties a powerful means of safeguarding assets before and after arbitral awards. By providing robust interim relief in support of both domestic and foreign arbitrations, the ADGM reinforces its status as a leading arbitration-support jurisdiction. For practitioners and parties alike, understanding how and when to deploy WFOs in the arbitration context is essential to ensuring that arbitral justice is not undermined by strategic asset dissipation.
