In the recent case of A17 v B17 & Others (2025),the Abu Dhabi Global Market Court of First Instance (ADGMCFI) proved its right to order Worldwide Freezing Orders even if the arbitration takes place in a different country. This indicates that if a party receives an arbitration award and the defendant attempts to hide the assets or avoid making payment, the claimant can file a WFO with the ADGM to freeze the assets internationally. This suggests that there will be enhanced control over the unlawful transfer of assets, preventing the guilty parties from relocating their assets.

This case shows how Worldwide Freezing Orders(WFOs) can be used in international cross-border conflicts. As a result, certain defendant corporations or individuals may be unable to swiftly transferor dispose of their assets, giving courts more power and enabling them to achieve justice for claimants. Furthermore, the use of Chabra jurisdiction indicates that parties who were not directly subject to a decision but were involved in the conduct might still be held liable. The DIFC Court of Appeal's decision in Carmon, as well as the ADGM's position on WFOs, demonstrate that UAE courts can operate on a global scale and are reliable jurisdictions for resolving international issues.

This article will examine the details and legal implications of the case, as well as the effect the ruling will have on companies functioning on a global scale.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
‍
The matter relates to an onshore company situated in Abu Dhabi and two defendant companies from Cyprus. The arbitration proceedings were conducted under the Rules of the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), resulting in an award in favour of the claimant. Nonetheless, the defendant was hesitant in making the payment, leaving the award unfulfilled. Consequently, the claimant commenced proceedings in the ADGM against the defendant and an additional company based in Abu Dhabi that belonged to the same group.

In the meantime, the defendant attempted to file for bankruptcy through a subsidiary in Delaware, United States. However, the application was withdrawn as it was deemed to have been submitted in bad faith. The claimant sought a WFO to freeze the defendant's assets, along with a supplementary application to enforce the original award. Both applications submitted by the claimant were successful. Nevertheless, the defendant tried to overturn the enforcement order by making the following applications:

1.    for a WFO to be discharged, along with a declaration that the Court had no jurisdiction to issue the WFO in the first place.

2.    a declaration that the Court should not have exercised its jurisdiction to grant a recognition and enforcement of the original award. Hence, it shall be set aside.

THE JUDGEMENT

‍In response to the above application, Mr Justice Sir Andrew Smith stated that both of the applications shall be dismissed on the following grounds. First and foremost, the ADGM Court possesses the authority to issue a WFO in accordance with Article 13 of Law No. 4 of 2013(the Founding Law), along with other ADGM Court Regulations and the ADGM Court Procedure Rules. The Court has an inherent jurisdiction to grant a WFO, particularly in matters concerning the enforcement of an arbitration award under the Arbitration Regulations (New York Convention).This was also seen in the earlier cases of Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v Bavaguthu Raghuram Shetty (2021) and the DIFC Court of Appeal decision in Carmon.

As confirmed by the case of Convoy Collateral Ltd v Broad Idea International Ltd (2021), the Court has the authority to freeze the assets when there is a real risk of the assets disappearing. The defendant’s intention to discharge the WFO evidence that the company possesses assets that they were trying to dispose of in order to avoid settling the award.

Furthermore, the case utilised Chabra jurisdiction, meaning that the WFO could be issued against an individual who did not have any direct judgment against them. The following requirements must be satisfied in order to obtain this order:

·      the claimant should have a reasonable belief that the defendant has assets that could be subject to the injunction.

·      the assets can been forced by the court and may fulfil the future judgment.

·      there is a risk that the defendant may attempt to liquidate the assets to avoid settling the award.

Additionally, the Court confirmed that Chabra jurisdiction aligns with the Founding Law, as the WFO was issued to enforce the initial arbitral award which was not satisfied, rather than providing a sole judgment.

‍