Arbitration analysis: In a judgment closely following the position adopted by the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) Court of Appeal in Carmon, the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court of First Instance (the ADGMCFI) has ruled that it has the jurisdiction to grant a Worldwide Freezing Order (WFO), not only within the context of court litigation but also in support of actions for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the 2015 ADGM Arbitration Regulations as amended. More specifically, the ADGMCFI confirmed that the ADGMCFI’s jurisdiction was not restricted by personal jurisdiction over the defendants, nor by service of proceedings upon them. It also confirmed its ability to issue a WFO against a person against whom the applicant had no claim, judgment, or prospective judgment (the so-called Chabra jurisdiction). Written by Dr Gordon Blanke, founding principal at Blanke Arbitration, Farhan Shafi, associate at Blanke Arbitration, and Sajid Suleman, barrister at No5 Chambers.

Arbitration analysis: The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) Court of Appeal has delivered a landmark decision confirming the dominance of the mandatory law of the seat over institutional arbitration rules regarding interim relief. The court allowed an appeal against the first instance court’s refusal to grant a worldwide freezing order (WFO) in support of an ADGM-seated London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) arbitration. The first instance judge refused relief because the applicants had not obtained the tribunal’s prior authorisation, which is a prerequisite under Article 25.3 of the LCIA Rules (2020) once a tribunal is formed. The Court of Appeal held that mandatory statutory powers to grant interim relief cannot be displaced by institutional rules, and that a WFO may be granted despite the lack of tribunal authorisation [A30, ¶ 17]. The court found that section 31 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015, which empowers the court to grant interim measures in cases of urgency or where the tribunal cannot act effectively, is a mandatory provision [A30, ¶ 18; quoting Arbitration Regulations, section 31]. Therefore, pursuant to LCIA Article 14.2, which subjects the tribunal’s duties to mandatory laws, a party exercising a statutory right under the law of the seat does not commit a breach of the arbitration agreement [A30, ¶ 21]. This decision confirms that the ADGM Courts will intervene to preserve assets in urgent cases, reinforcing the ADGM as a high-intervention seat for protective measures. Written by Othmane Saadani, partner and Brayden Winkler, associate at Bin Sevan Advocates & Legal Consultants.

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 14 November 2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline European Commission FSR investigation into the proposed acquisition by Abu Dhabi National Oil Company PJSC of Covestro (FS.100156). The transaction involves vertical overlaps in relation to the supply of chemical products. Latest developments On 14 November 2025, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments.On 13 February 2024, the Commission cleared the transaction subject to commitments. The Commission was concerned that the transaction would harm competition in the markets for: (i) air cargo transport services between Europe and South Korea; and (ii) passenger air transport services on routes between Seoul and certain Europe destinations, especially Barcelona, Paris, Frankfurt and Rome.To address the Commission’s concerns, Korean Air offered to: (i) divest Asiana’s global cargo freighter business; and (ii) make available to rival airline T'Way the necessary assets to enable it to start flight operations on the four overlapping routes. Parties • Abu Dhabi National Oil Compnay PJSC (ADNOC):

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is described in the Glossary of the CPR as 'a collective description of methods of resolving disputes otherwise than through the normal trial process'.

ADR Vietnam Chambers has published an article examining Vietnam’s newly adopted Law on Specialized Courts, which establishes the country’s first international commercial court model as part of its broader judicial reform programme. The law introduces a Specialized Court operating under a distinct procedural framework aligned with international practice, aimed at handling complex commercial and cross-border disputes. The analysis notes that the law formally recognises expert evidence for the first time in Vietnamese court proceedings and allows cross-examination of witnesses and experts during hearings. Judges are also empowered to hold case management conferences to agree procedural timelines and the conduct of proceedings. In addition, the Specialized Court may issue summary judgments where the outcome is clear and default judgments where a defendant fails to participate despite proper service. The court is further authorised to apply existing precedents and develop its own body of case law, signalling a shift toward a more precedent-oriented adjudicatory approach.

This Practice Note summarises the key provisions for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or negotiated dispute resolution (NDR) as provided for in the various court guides for the different divisions of the High Court, including guidance on early neutral evaluation (ENE). Court guides The different divisions of the High Court each have their own ‘court guide’ which provides a general explanation of the work and practice of the particular court, with practical information to be used in conjunction with the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) to ensure the effective management of proceedings in that court. The guides are not to be regarded as a substitute for the CPR, but an explanation of how the rules and practice directions are applied in those courts. The guides do not have the status of a Practice Direction and do not have the force of law but parties are expected to comply with them and a failure to do so may influence the way in which the court exercises its powers under the CPR, which may include the making of

This Practice Note contains details of court approved or court managed schemes which promote or assist parties with resolving a dispute using alternative dispute resolution (ADR) including mediation. It also contains details of other ADR bodies which parties may find useful. The court has various powers to order or encourage parties to consider using ADR to settle their dispute, as set out in the overriding objective in CPR 1. For information on this, see Practice Note: Court powers to order or encourage ADR in civil proceedings. In furtherance of this objective, there are a number of court managed or court approved ADR schemes which the parties can use, or in some cases, must use, including those set out in this Practice Note. For other ADR developments, also see Practice Note: Tracker—ADR developments. Small Claims Mediation Service HM Courts and Tribunals Service provides a mediation service for certain claims proceeding in the small claims track called the small claims mediation service (SCMS). Referral

a clause in a contract which provides for ADR as a method of resolving disputes, see Drafting a resolution'>dispute resolution clause. The clause will usually require an ADR notice to be served on the other party. Even if there is no contract or clause it may be possible to serve an ADR notice on another party.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note considers the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/542 (Consumer ADR Regulations) applicable to disputes arising before the introduction of Part 4, Chapter 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA 2024) (Alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes). It considers trader information requirements, and their impact on consumer disputes and dispute resolution clauses in business-to-consumer (B2C) contracts. This Practice Note also considers the standards that an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider must meet in order to achieve certification under the Consumer ADR Regulations and the competent authorities responsible for certifying the same. Background The Consumer ADR Regulations came into force in part on 7 April 2015 (Parts 1–3) and on 1 October 2015 (Parts 4–5). The Consumer ADR Regulations were subsequently amended by the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Amendment) Regulations 2015, SI 2015/1392. The Consumer ADR Regulations (as amended) implemented Directive 2013/11/EU, the EU ADR Directive and

Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 The Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 supersedes the COVID-19 Clinical Negligence Protocol (2020) (last updated in June 2021) which was initially created as an emergency measure to adapt clinical negligence claims handling and litigation processes during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The 2024 agreement builds on the previous Protocol with various practices now adopted into everyday claims management. The agreement is not contractually binding but places an emphasis on collaborative working between the parties. The agreement can be found here: Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024. The claimant is required to request an extension in accordance with the provisions of this agreement in advance of the primary limitation period expiring. In respect of claims where NHSR is the indemnifying organisation and has not yet been notified of the claim, the written notification should be sent to nhsr.limitationnotification@nhs.net. Separate provisions apply, including in respect of limitation, for those not party to or able to benefit from the agreement. For further guidance, see Practice Note: Extending the limitation period in clinical negligence

Note: • this Practice Note gives specific guidance on matters proceeding in the Technology and Construction Court (TCC) under the provisions set out in CPR 60, CPR PD 60 and the TCC Guide. As these provisions are additional to the general provisions set out elsewhere in the CPR, this Practice Note should be read in conjunction with general guidance on preparing for and attending trial including that in Trial—overview which, in turn, links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of preparing for and attending trials • shorter and flexible trials schemes—claims started on or after 1 October 2015 in the TCC may be suitable for and/or be subject to one or both of the schemes operating under CPR PD 57AB, namely the shorter trials scheme and/or the flexible trials scheme. For more information on these schemes, see Practice Notes: Business and Property Courts—shorter trials scheme and Business and Property Courts—flexible trials scheme • electronic working—for information on electronic working in the TCC, see Practice Note: TCC—starting a claim—High Court or County Court?—Electronic working

independent organisations who can help arrange a mediation or other ADR process including: • advising on the most appropriate form of ADR • identifying a suitably trained mediator • draft the mediation agreement to be signed by the parties and the mediator • deal with the administrative issues of holding a mediation such as agreeing a date, arranging an independent venue and refreshments and facilities Examples include the Centre for Dispute Resolution (CEDR), the ADR group and In Place of Strife