< Back to insights hub

Article

Anti-suit injunctions in the ADGM – lessons from A22 and B22 v C22 28 January 2026

"The ADGM Courts have confirmed that they have jurisdiction to issue ASI where it is 'just and convenient to do so', in a landmark decision in A22 and B22 v C22 [2025] ADGMCFI 0018."

The Abu Dhabi Global Market Courts (“ADGM Courts”) have confirmed that they have jurisdiction to issue anti-suit injunctions (“ASI”) where it is “just and convenient to do so”, in a landmark decision in A22 and B22 v C22 [2025] ADGMCFI 0018.

This judgment expands the ADGM Courts’ existing jurisdictional powers to include the authority to restrain onshore Abu Dhabi court proceedings. This marks an important development in the law on ASIs in the UAE’s free zone jurisdictions.

Background

The case before the ADGM Court of First Instance arose out of an insurance policy claim between a contractor and its insurer, which related to losses incurred from works at an oil field in Saudi Arabia.

The marine warranty surveyor (“MWS“) was appointed firstly under a letter of intent and later under a service order, which included an ICC arbitration clause providing for an Abu Dhabi seat, as allegedly incorporated by reference from the contractor’s general terms and conditions.

After the contractor was indemnified under the policy, the insurer commenced proceedings in the onshore Abu Dhabi courts to recover the payout from the MWS and a related company.

The claimants in turn filed an ASI application with the ADGM Courts to prevent the defendant from continuing its claim in the onshore courts, on the grounds that the onshore proceedings had been issued contrary to the terms of the purported arbitration agreement.

The ADGM Court’s reasoning

There were two core issues before the judge:

  1. do the ADGM Courts have jurisdiction to entertain interim ASI applications; and
  2. if such jurisdiction exists, should the court exercise it in favour of the claimants?
Jurisdiction

On the first issue of jurisdiction, the court confirmed in clear terms that it does have jurisdiction to grant ASIs, so long as it is just and convenient to do so.

The basis of this jurisdiction is statutory in nature and arises from Abu Dhabi Law No. (4) of 2013, as amended by Law No. (12) of 2020.

In addition, under the ADGM Courts, Civil Evidence, Judgments, Enforcement and Judicial Appointments Regulations 2015, the ADGM Courts “may by order (whether interim or final) grant an injunction or appoint a receiver in all cases in which it appears to the Court to be just and convenient to do so”.

By reference to English law, the court gave effect to the core purpose of ASIs arising out of arbitration agreements to uphold the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Therefore, the judge ruled that the ADGM Courts do have jurisdiction to issue injunctions restraining a party to an arbitration agreement from continuing onshore proceedings, where it is equitable to do so.

Should the jurisdiction be exercised?

On the facts, however, the court declined to grant the injunction because the claimants had not shown a high degree of probability that a valid arbitration agreement existed as:

  1. the timing of execution of the service order was roughly one year after the occurrence of the damage at sea that gave rise to the insurance claim; and
  2. the co-claimant seeking the ASI was not a party to the service order in which the arbitration agreement was alleged to be found.

The court also declined the application for interim relief because:

  1. the claimants had delayed in making it; and
  2. it was made opportunistically only after an expert report in the onshore proceedings was issued to the claimants‘

Practical implications

Contracting parties and legal practitioners should note the following key points for future reference:

< Back to insights hub

Key contacts

"This case clarifies the scope of the ADGM Courts' powers in cross-jurisdictional disputes and confirms that the ADGM Courts have the authority to issue ASIs."

  1. comity: the decision demonstrates how the onshore and offshore jurisdictions coexist – the ADGM Courts are very much “courts of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and must show respect to the processes of the onshore courts”;
  2. promptness: the ADGM Courts encourage timely applications for ASIs and do not look favourably upon applications which are merely opportunistic;
  3. high evidential threshold: anti-suit relief will only be granted where applicants have shown a high degree of probability that an arbitration agreement exists, which the concurrent foreign proceedings would breach;
  4. discretionary remedy: ASIs are a discretionary remedy, which the ADGM Courts will only grant sparingly and where it is just and convenient to do so; and
  5. succinct and unambiguous drafting: contracting parties should avoid ambiguity when incorporating arbitration clauses by reference into associated agreements.

Key takeaways

This case clarifies the scope of the ADGM Courts’ powers in cross-jurisdictional disputes and confirms that the ADGM Courts (like the DIFC Courts) have the authority to issue ASIs, for example to protect arbitration proceedings.

The decision is a timely reminder that anti-suit relief is a delicate area of law for the UAE free zone courts, with the ADGM and DIFC Courts conscious of the balance to be struck between protecting contractual rights whilst also respecting the sovereignty of the onshore courts.

< Back to insights hub

Key contacts

Follow us on