1. Introduction

The Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM) common law civil litigation framework is a distinctive legal system operating within the Abu Dhabi Global Market financial free zone in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It provides a framework for resolving civil and commercial disputes through an independent court system applying common law principles.

Unlike the UAE's general civil-law system, which is substantially based on codified legislation, ADGM has adopted a common law framework. Its courts apply ADGM legislation and, subject to the governing statutory provisions, the principles and rules of English common law and equity.

The ADGM framework is particularly relevant to disputes involving financial services, commercial contracts, corporate transactions, shareholder relationships, professional negligence, insolvency, and other matters falling within the jurisdiction of the ADGM Courts.

The expression “civil law” in this context refers to civil litigation—disputes involving private rights, contractual obligations, commercial relationships, damages, injunctions, and other civil remedies. It does not mean that ADGM primarily applies the civil-law legal tradition associated with continental European jurisdictions.

A central feature of ADGM is that it combines a common law approach to adjudication with a statutory framework tailored to the financial and commercial environment of Abu Dhabi.

2. Meaning and Nature of the ADGM Litigation Framework

The ADGM civil litigation framework consists of the laws, procedural rules, judicial institutions, and remedies governing civil disputes within the jurisdiction of the ADGM Courts.

Its main characteristics include:

Common law methodology: Courts apply legal principles developed through legislation and judicial decisions.

English common law and equity: These principles have a significant role under the ADGM legal framework, subject to applicable ADGM legislation and statutory modifications.

Written pleadings and evidence: Parties ordinarily identify their claims and defences through formal court documents and supporting evidence.

Judicial case management: Courts supervise proceedings to promote fairness, proportionality, and efficient resolution.

Precedent: Judicial decisions can guide subsequent cases, subject to the applicable rules of precedent and the hierarchy of courts.

Civil remedies: Depending on the cause of action, courts may grant damages, declarations, injunctions, and other legally available relief.

Commercial dispute resolution: The framework is designed to address disputes arising from business and financial relationships.

ADGM is not simply a tribunal applying English law as a foreign law. It is a statutory jurisdiction in the UAE whose governing legislation establishes how common law principles operate within it.

3. Principal legislation and court rules

The main sources of the ADGM civil litigation framework are the following:

English common law does not apply without qualification. It applies insofar as it is suitable for ADGM, subject to modifications required by ADGM circumstances and any amendments or overrides established by ADGM legislation.

The court's jurisdiction is also statutory. A party cannot assume that every dispute involving an international business or an ADGM-registered company automatically falls within the ADGM Courts' jurisdiction.

4. Structure of the ADGM Courts

The ADGM Courts are modelled broadly on the English judicial system and comprise two principal levels.

ADGM Court of Appeal

Hears appeals from the Court of First Instance and addresses relevant questions concerning ADGM law.

Appeals subject to applicable procedural and statutory requirements

ADGM Court of First Instance

Determines civil and commercial claims, subject to its statutory jurisdiction.

Commercial and Civil Division

Commercial contracts, financial disputes, debt claims, and other civil matters.

Real Property Division

Real-property disputes within its assigned jurisdiction.

Employment Division

Employment claims within its jurisdiction.

Small Claims Division

Eligible lower-value claims under the applicable rules.

The precise division and procedure depend on the claim and the applicable rules. Criminal, family, and inheritance disputes are not part of the ordinary ADGM Courts' civil jurisdiction.

5. Jurisdiction: When can the ADGM Courts hear a civil claim?

Jurisdiction is one of the most important issues in ADGM litigation. Before filing a claim, a party should identify the statutory basis on which the court may hear it.

Potential jurisdictional grounds include:

ADGM connection: The dispute falls within a statutory jurisdictional gateway connected with ADGM.

Contractual jurisdiction clause: The parties have agreed to submit relevant disputes to the ADGM Courts, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Written opt-in: Parties may, in qualifying circumstances, agree in writing to submit a civil or commercial dispute to the ADGM Courts even without an ordinary territorial connection.

Statutory or regulatory jurisdiction: A specific enactment gives the court authority to determine the dispute.

Recognition or enforcement proceedings: The court may have jurisdiction over specified applications concerning judgments or awards under the applicable legal framework.

The written opt-in mechanism is particularly significant for international commercial parties. However, it must be validly exercised and cannot override statutory exclusions or other applicable legal restrictions.

Example

Suppose a company incorporated outside the UAE enters into a commercial agreement with another foreign company. Their contract contains a clause selecting the ADGM Courts.

The parties may be able to litigate there under the written opt-in mechanism even if neither party is established in ADGM. The court must nevertheless assess the clause, the nature of the claim, and any applicable statutory restrictions.

6. Commencement of civil litigation

The ADGM Court Procedure Rules 2016 establish the framework for initiating proceedings. The precise route depends on the type of claim.

Step 1: Identify the cause of action

The claimant must identify the legal basis of the claim, such as breach of contract, negligence, debt recovery, a declaration of rights, or an application for injunctive relief.

Step 2: Establish jurisdiction

The claimant should identify the applicable jurisdictional gateway and examine any jurisdiction clause, arbitration agreement, governing-law clause, or statutory restriction.

Step 3: File the appropriate claim form

Proceedings are ordinarily commenced by filing the prescribed claim form and supporting documents. Particular claims may follow specialised or simplified procedures.

Step 4: Serve the defendant

The claim must be served in accordance with the applicable procedural rules. Service outside ADGM or outside the UAE may involve additional requirements.

Step 5: Acknowledgment and defence

The defendant may acknowledge service, challenge jurisdiction where permitted, file a defence, and raise counterclaims or other procedural objections.

Step 6: Case management

The court identifies the issues, establishes deadlines, manages disclosure and evidence, and determines the appropriate route to trial or another form of disposal.

The parties should check the current rules and practice directions for deadlines and forms, because procedural requirements can be amended.

7. Core stages of an ADGM civil trial

A. Pleadings

Pleadings define the dispute. The claimant sets out the material facts and relief sought, while the defendant responds to the allegations and identifies its defences.

A party should plead material facts clearly rather than rely on broad allegations without particulars.

B. Disclosure and documentary evidence

Depending on the applicable procedure and court directions, parties may have to disclose relevant documents, including contracts, emails, financial records, board minutes, accounting documents, and internal communications.

The disclosure process is intended to help the parties identify the evidence relevant to the issues in dispute.

C. Witness evidence

Witnesses may provide written statements and, where required, give oral evidence and be cross-examined. The court assesses credibility, consistency, and the relationship between testimony and contemporaneous documents.

D. Expert evidence

Technical or specialist disputes may require expert evidence, including accounting, valuation, engineering, financial, or industry-specific opinions. The court controls the use of expert evidence under the applicable rules.

E. Interim relief

A claimant may seek an interim injunction or another appropriate interim order to preserve assets, prevent threatened harm, or protect the effectiveness of the final judgment. The applicant must satisfy the relevant legal test.

F. Trial and judgment

The court considers the pleaded issues, admissible evidence, applicable law, and submissions. It may grant damages, declarations, injunctions, costs, or other relief that is legally available.

G. Appeal and enforcement

An appeal may be possible where the statutory and procedural requirements are satisfied. Once a judgment becomes enforceable, the successful party may pursue enforcement under the applicable ADGM and UAE framework.

8. Important case laws on the ADGM common law civil litigation framework

The following cases illustrate the principal legal rules relevant to ADGM civil litigation. The first group includes decisions of the ADGM Courts; the second includes leading English common law authorities relevant to areas of law that may apply in ADGM, subject to the Application of English Law Regulations 2015 and ADGM-specific legislation.

Case 1: A6 v B6 — ADGM Court of First Instance, 13 March 2023

Case reference: ADGMCFI-2022-238.

Facts and issue: The parties applied to the ADGM Court in connection with an arbitration-related dispute. A central issue was whether the court could hear the application when the parties' dispute did not necessarily have an ordinary connection with ADGM.

Decision and principle: The parties expressly agreed in writing to submit to the jurisdiction of the ADGM Courts. The court treated that agreement as satisfying the relevant opt-in jurisdictional gateway under the ADGM Founding Law.

Importance: This case illustrates the importance of party autonomy and written jurisdiction agreements in ADGM litigation.

Practical lesson: Parties should ensure that any agreement selecting the ADGM Courts is clear, properly documented, and applicable to the dispute in question. An opt-in agreement can be significant even where the parties or underlying transaction have limited territorial connections with ADGM.

Case 2: Faysal Mohamad Awad v. 3AM Property Investment Company LLC & Anor.

Citation: [2025] ADGMCFI 0003.

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned a land investment contract, the rights created by the contract, and the consequences of its interpretation and alleged breach.

Decision and principle: The ADGM Court held that the land investment contract was binding and enforceable. It concluded that the claimant had not acquired rights in rem under the contract, found the first defendant liable for specified contractual breaches, and determined that a claimed debt had not yet accrued due. The monetary claim against the second defendant was dismissed.

Importance: The judgment illustrates the role of contractual interpretation, property-related legal requirements, limitation, and the distinction between personal contractual rights and rights in rem.

Practical lesson: A civil claimant must distinguish between a contractual right against a particular party and a proprietary right in an asset. A contract may be binding without automatically creating a registered or enforceable proprietary interest.

Case 3: Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. NMC Healthcare Ltd and associated proceedings

Citation: [2025] ADGMCFI 0004.

Facts and issue: The litigation involved substantial claims arising from alleged misconduct associated with the NMC Healthcare group. The proceedings included claims concerning fraud, duties of directors or managers, negligence, unjust enrichment, and insolvency-related liability.

Decision and principle: The judgment addressed the legal framework governing the claims before the court, including the distinction between claims governed by UAE law and claims governed by ADGM insolvency legislation. It also considered how the ADGM Court should approach questions of applicable law and procedural case management in complex, multi-party litigation.

Importance: The case demonstrates that ADGM litigation is not confined to disputes governed by English law. A court applying ADGM procedure may also have to determine claims governed by UAE federal law or other applicable laws.

Practical lesson: In a complex commercial dispute, parties must analyse separately the governing law of each cause of action, the court's jurisdiction, and the applicable procedural rules. The fact that a claim is heard in ADGM does not automatically mean that its substantive merits are governed by English law.

Case 4: Donohue v. Armco Inc.

Citation: [2001] UKHL 64; [2002] 1 All ER 749.

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned the effect of contractual jurisdiction arrangements and whether proceedings could be brought against parties in different fora.

Decision and principle: The House of Lords considered the importance of jurisdiction agreements and the risk of fragmented litigation. The decision demonstrates the significance of respecting agreed dispute-resolution arrangements, subject to the relevant legal considerations.

Importance for ADGM: Commercial parties frequently choose a particular court to obtain predictability and avoid parallel proceedings. The principles discussed in this case are relevant when interpreting forum-selection clauses and assessing disputes involving multiple parties or jurisdictions.

Practical lesson: A jurisdiction clause should be drafted with care, especially where related contracts involve several parties. The clause should address the intended forum and, where appropriate, coordination with arbitration agreements.

Qualification: This is an English authority, not an ADGM judgment. Its relevance depends on the applicable ADGM legal framework and the precise issue before the court.

Case 5: Hadley v. Baxendale

Citation: (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145.

Facts and issue: A mill owner suffered loss after a carrier delayed delivery of a broken mill shaft. The dispute concerned which losses could be recovered as damages for breach of contract.

Decision and principle: The court established the traditional distinction between losses arising naturally from a breach and losses that were reasonably within the parties' contemplation because of special circumstances known when the contract was made.

Importance for ADGM: Contractual damages are a central component of commercial civil litigation. Where the relevant common law principles apply, this case provides a foundational approach to remoteness of contractual loss.

Practical lesson: A claimant seeking commercial damages should identify the loss caused by the breach and explain why the loss falls within the legally recoverable scope. A party seeking to recover unusual or special losses should consider whether the relevant circumstances were sufficiently communicated at contract formation.

Qualification: The rule has been developed by later authorities and must be applied alongside the governing contract law and any relevant ADGM legislation.

Case 6: Caparo Industries plc v. Dickman

Citation: [1990] 2 AC 605.

Facts and issue: Investors alleged that auditors had prepared accounts negligently and sought to rely on those accounts in making investment decisions.

Decision and principle: The House of Lords considered the circumstances in which a duty of care may arise in negligence. The decision emphasised foreseeability, proximity, and whether imposing a duty would be fair, just, and reasonable in the circumstances.

Importance for ADGM: Civil litigation may involve claims against accountants, auditors, advisers, consultants, directors, and other professionals. The case is relevant to analysing whether a defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant.

Practical lesson: It is not enough to show that a professional made an error or that a claimant suffered loss. The claimant must establish a legally recognised duty, breach, causation, and recoverable damage under the applicable law.

Qualification: The precise duty-of-care analysis depends on the governing law, the relationship between the parties, and any applicable statutory or contractual duties.

Case 7: American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.

Citation: [1975] AC 396.

Facts and issue: The claimant sought an interim injunction in a patent dispute while the substantive litigation remained unresolved.

Decision and principle: The House of Lords established a framework for considering applications for interlocutory injunctions, including whether there is a serious question to be tried and whether the balance of convenience favours granting relief.

Importance for ADGM: Interim injunctions may be essential in commercial litigation where a party seeks to preserve assets, prevent a threatened breach, protect confidential information, or maintain the status quo pending trial.

Practical lesson: An applicant should present clear evidence of the threatened harm, the legal right being protected, and why the proposed interim order is justified. The court must apply the relevant test as developed under the governing law.

Qualification: The applicable ADGM legislation, procedural rules, and subsequent developments in common law must be considered. The case should not be treated as a substitute for the current legal test in every type of interim application.

Case 8: Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd.

Citation: [1897] AC 22.

Facts and issue: The dispute concerned the legal status of a company formed by an individual who retained substantial control over its business.

Decision and principle: The House of Lords affirmed the principle of separate corporate legal personality. A duly incorporated company is legally distinct from its shareholders, subject to recognised exceptions and applicable statutory rules.

Importance for ADGM: Corporate litigation frequently involves disputes about debts, shareholder rights, directors' duties, asset ownership, and liability. The principle helps determine whether the company or an individual shareholder is the proper party to a claim.

Practical lesson: A shareholder is not automatically liable for every debt of the company merely because the shareholder owns or controls it. Personal liability requires an appropriate legal basis, such as a guarantee, personal wrongdoing, or a statutory ground.

Qualification: The consequences of separate personality depend on applicable company legislation and the particular claim. The principle does not exclude liability for a person's own actionable conduct.

Case 9: Henderson v. Henderson

Citation: (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313.

Facts and issue: The case concerned the extent to which a party could bring further proceedings over matters that could and should have been addressed in earlier litigation.

Decision and principle: The decision is associated with the principle that litigation should not be unnecessarily fragmented and that parties should ordinarily advance their case comprehensively in the appropriate proceedings.

Importance for ADGM: Commercial disputes may involve successive claims, overlapping contracts, multiple parties, or parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions. Case-management principles help reduce duplication and the risk of inconsistent outcomes.

Practical lesson: Parties should identify related claims and issues early, consider whether they can be determined together, and avoid procedural strategies that amount to an abuse of process.

Qualification: The modern law of abuse of process is more nuanced than a rigid rule requiring every conceivable claim to be brought at once. The court examines the circumstances and applicable procedural law.

9. Key legal principles arising from the cases

10. Remedies available in ADGM civil litigation

The remedy depends on the cause of action, the evidence, and the applicable law.

A. Damages

Damages may compensate for proven contractual loss, negligence-related loss, or other legally actionable harm. The claimant must establish the required elements of liability and the basis for calculating the loss.

B. Declarations

A court may declare the parties' legal rights or the meaning and effect of an agreement where the requirements for declaratory relief are satisfied.

C. Injunctions

An injunction may restrain conduct or require specified action, where the court has power to grant the remedy and the relevant legal test is met.

D. Specific performance

In appropriate cases, a court may order performance of a contractual obligation rather than award damages alone. This remedy is discretionary and subject to the governing law.

E. Costs

The court may make costs orders under the applicable rules. Costs can be significant in commercial litigation and should be considered when assessing the proportionality of a claim or defence.

F. Enforcement

A successful judgment must be enforced through the applicable legal procedures. Recognition and enforcement outside ADGM may depend on the relevant UAE framework, applicable agreements, and the jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought.

11. Practical example

Suppose two international companies enter into a financing agreement containing a written clause selecting the ADGM Courts. One company alleges that the other has failed to repay a substantial debt.

The claimant would ordinarily need to:

Examine the jurisdiction clause and identify the applicable statutory basis for the ADGM Courts to hear the dispute.

Determine the governing law of the financing agreement.

File the appropriate claim and supporting documents.

Serve the defendant according to the applicable procedural rules.

Establish the debt, the contractual repayment terms, and any relevant default.

Address any defence, counterclaim, or jurisdictional objection.

Obtain judgment and, if necessary, seek enforcement.

If the defendant disputes the amount due, the court may examine the contract, payment records, correspondence, and other evidence. If the contract is governed by UAE law rather than English law, the court must apply the relevant UAE-law principles to the substantive issues even though the litigation takes place within the ADGM framework.

This example illustrates the distinction between the law governing the proceedings and the law governing the underlying rights.

12. Advantages and limitations of the ADGM framework

Advantages

A common law system familiar to many international commercial parties.

Published judgments that help develop legal certainty.

Structured procedural rules and judicial case management.

A framework for commercial and financial disputes involving international parties.

Potential access to interim relief and enforceable civil judgments.

Written opt-in jurisdiction in qualifying cases.

Limitations and risks

Jurisdiction must be established; it should never be assumed.

Legal representation, evidence, and procedural compliance can be costly.

The governing law may differ from the law of the forum.

Enforcement outside ADGM can raise additional legal and procedural questions.

English common law applies subject to ADGM-specific modifications and legislation.

The availability of a particular remedy depends on the applicable law and the facts.

13. Conclusion

The ADGM common law civil litigation framework is a specialised system for resolving civil and commercial disputes within a statutory jurisdiction in Abu Dhabi. It combines the direct application of English common law and equity, subject to defined qualifications, with ADGM legislation and formal court procedure.

The ADGM-specific decisions in A6 v B6, Faysal Mohamad Awad v. 3AM Property Investment Company LLC, and Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. NMC Healthcare illustrate jurisdictional choice, contractual interpretation, and the need to distinguish the law governing a claim from the law governing the proceedings. The English authorities discussed above provide foundational principles relevant to contracts, negligence, injunctions, corporate personality, and the management of litigation.

The most important practical lesson is that a party contemplating ADGM litigation should establish jurisdiction, the governing law, the cause of action, the available remedies, and the applicable procedural requirements before commencing proceedings.

The cases summarised here are educational illustrations of the framework, not a substitute for examining the full judgments, current ADGM legislation, and amendments to the court rules when advising on a particular dispute.