The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) has issued an update following the Supreme Court judgment in AGNI and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) guidance issued on 15 June 2026. It confirms that the AGNI judgment became the test for a deprivation of liberty immediately after it was handed down, with no period of grace, and that the acid test from Cheshire West should no longer be followed. ADASS notes that councils should continue to respond to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) referrals while a coordinated national approach to reviewing existing and pending cases is developed. ADASS and the national DoLS Leads network are developing a priority/review tool and continue to suggest a period of adjustment. The note says councils should align practice with the new legal position, share the ruling across their organisations, upskill staff and review deprivation of liberty materials. It also highlights that assessment should begin with a multifactorial assessment of the proposed arrangements, that objection is now a relevant factor and that DHSC advises providers to make referrals where there is doubt about objection, valid consent or whether arrangements constitute a deprivation of liberty.

The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) Autumn Survey 2025 reports a 30% increase in social care packages costing over £7,000 per week for 18-24 year olds, with numbers rising from 547 in 2024 to 712 in 2025. The survey projects a £623m overspend for 2025/26 and identifies required savings of £869m in 2026/27 budgets. Half of directors lack agreements with health partners on funding and training frameworks for healthcare tasks transferred to social care. The Local Government Association responded that the increase demonstrates financial pressure on councils meeting statutory responsibilities and called for sustainable funding.

An arbitration under the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation & Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) 2013 Procedural Regulations of Arbitration (the 2013 Regulations) is commenced by a Request for Arbitration (the Request)—see: ADCCAC—starting an arbitration—Request for Arbitration. This Practice Note is based on the ‘official’ English version of the 2013 Regulations. There are discrepancies between Arabic and English in relation to the translation of mandatory or permissive words. The original version is however in Arabic and it is Arabic which will prevail should there be any dispute concerning the 2013 Regulations. The costs of the arbitration to cover the Centre’s fees and those of the Panel (the ADCCAC term for the tribunal) are to be paid to the Centre at the outset of the arbitration—see: Arbitrating under the ADCCAC Regulations 2013—Roles and definitions. Parties must of course remember that in addition to the costs and fees of the Panel and the Centre, they are most likely to incur their own legal fees and, if unsuccessful, may be ordered to pay some or all of their opponent’s

An arbitration agreement that provides for arbitration under the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation & Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) will be conducted in accordance with the 2013 Procedural Regulations of Arbitration (the 2013 Regulations), which set out, among other things, the procedural structure of the arbitration. As with all international arbitration rules, the structure provided is very loose in order to permit flexibility for the parties and the Panel (the ADCCAC term for the tribunal) and often only applies in default of agreement by the parties. This Practice Note is based on the ‘official’ English version of the 2013 Regulations. There are discrepancies between Arabic and English in relation to the translation of mandatory or permissive words. The original version is however in Arabic and it is Arabic which will prevail should there be any dispute concerning the 2013 Regulations. Venue and practical matters Venue or seat The 2013 Regulations talk about the 'venue' of the arbitration. This is probably intended to mean the 'seat' but it is not entirely clear whether it merely refers to the place where the

Arbitration under the 2013 Procedural Regulations of Arbitration (the 2013 Regulations) of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation & Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) (the Centre) is commenced by the claimant issuing a Request for Arbitration (the Request). This Practice Note is based on the ‘official’ English version of the 2013 Regulations. There are discrepancies between Arabic and English in relation to the translation of mandatory or permissive words. The original version is however in Arabic and it is Arabic which will prevail should there be any dispute concerning the 2013 Regulations. Request for Arbitration An arbitration under the 2013 Regulations is commenced by the claimant submitting a Request to the Centre—see: Arbitrating under the ADCCAC Regulations 2013—Roles and definitions. The claimant must send the Request to the Centre with sufficient copies for each party (art 5.1). All communications at this stage are to be sent to the Centre marked for the attention of the Director by any method that provides proof of delivery such as registered or personal post, fax, telex, email or other means (art 4.4). The

Arbitration under the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation & Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) 2013 Procedural Regulations of Arbitration (the 2013 Regulations) are conducted by a panel of arbitrations (the Panel), which can be formed of one or more arbitrators, provided it is an odd number (art 8). If the parties do not agree on the number of arbitrators, a sole arbitrator shall be appointed unless it appears to the ADCCAC Centre (the Centre) (see: Arbitrating under the ADCCAC Regulations 2013—Roles and definitions) due to the amount, nature or circumstances of the dispute that more than one arbitrator should be appointed. This Practice Note is based on the ‘official’ English version of the 2013 Regulations. There are discrepancies between Arabic and English in relation to the translation of mandatory or permissive words. The original version is however in Arabic and it is Arabic which will prevail should there be any dispute concerning the 2013 Regulations. Appointment process The arbitrators (the Panel) are to be appointed by agreement of the parties (art 9.1), failing which they will be appointed

An arbitration agreement which provides for arbitration under the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation & Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC) will be conducted under its 2013 Procedural Regulations of Arbitration (the 2013 Regulations). This Practice Note is based on the ‘official’ English version of the 2013 Regulations. There are discrepancies between Arabic and English in relation to the translation of mandatory or permissive words. The original version is however in Arabic and it is Arabic which will prevail should there be any dispute concerning the 2013 Regulations. For the purposes of enforcement, it is vital that the arbitral award complies with all the requirements of the rules under which it is made. Note that the provisions apply to any arbitral award, not just a final award (the Panel (the ADCCAC term for the tribunal) may render a provisional, partial or final award (art 28.1)). Awards must be distinguished from procedural orders, which under the 2013 Regulations (and often in practice in any event), if the parties, or all members of the Panel in the case of three arbitrators,

The Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ADCCI) has announced that the Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (arbitrateAD) has begun operations. ADCCI has said that arbitrateAD is in line with its efforts to strengthen the position of Abu Dhabi as a 'preeminent global hub for arbitration'. Arbitrations will be administered by arbitrateAD under its new rules, and will be an appointing authority in ad hoc proceedings. ADCCI reported that arbitrateAD's daily operations will leverage technology through it's online case management system, docketAD, to facilitate efficient case administration of all cases registered from 1 February 2024. Cases that were registered under prior to 1 February 2024 will continue to be administered by the rules of the Abu Dhabi Commercial Conciliation and Arbitration Centre (ADCCAC).

The Abu Dhabi Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ADCCI) has announced two new appointments to its Abu Dhabi International Arbitration Centre (ADIAC). Dr Ali Saeed bin Harmal Al Dhaheri will now serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors, while Khalid Abdul Karim Al Fahim joins as a new Board Member. The new appointees will assume their duties immediately up until 2026.

Arbitration analysis: In A15 v B15, the ADGM Court, presided by Justice Sir Andrew Smith, considered a recognition and enforcement application of an arbitral award. The arbitration clause in question specified that the place of arbitration was the ‘UAE’. The court determined that the seat of arbitration was Dubai, not the ADGM. Judgments from parallel proceedings in Umm Al Quwain and Dubai Court of Appeal relating to the same award were considered. The court decided to adjourn the recognition and enforcement application pending a decision of the Dubai Court of Cassation in set-aside proceedings, on the basis that the court may refuse enforcement if the award has been set aside at the seat of arbitration. The judgment underscores the importance of clearly defining the seat of arbitration in contracts. It also highlights the interplay between different jurisdictions and the necessity for strategic multi-jurisdictional planning in relation to arbitration cases. Written by Antonia Birt, partner at Reed Smith.

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.