ADGM Courts

A financial centre that offers common law but no court to apply it is offering a drafting convention. ADGM Courts are what make the legal framework operative, and they are the reason the rest of this site’s claims about English law mean anything in practice.

The structure is two-tier and deliberately familiar: a Court of First Instance that hears cases, and a Court of Appeal that hears appeals from it and determines the interpretation of ADGM’s regulations and rules. ADGM describes its platform as the world’s first end-to-end eCourts platform [ADGM Courts].

The judges are the substantive point. ADGM states they are “drawn from the most senior levels of judiciary of the world’s leading common law jurisdictions with extensive experience and long-standing, strong traditions in judicial independence”[ADGM Courts]. For a co-investor or an acquirer’s counsel weighing whether a Gulf holding structure is enforceable in practice, that sentence does more work than any amount of description of the free zone.

Broadly, three routes in.

1. Because the dispute is an ADGM one.The Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to hear and determine civil and commercial cases and disputes in accordance with ADGM’s regulations and rules [ADGM Courts — FAQs]. If your entity is registered in ADGM, this is your default forum for what arises out of it — including the shareholder and employment disputes no contract clause anticipates.
2. Because the parties agreed. Opt-in jurisdiction — see below.
3. Because a decision of an ADGM authority is being challenged. The Court hears appeals against decisions made by ADGM Authorities, and judicial review claims sit in the Commercial and Civil Division.

This is the part that is commercially useful to people who will never set up in ADGM, and it is regularly left out of explanations of the Centre.

Under section 16(2)(e) of the ADGM Courts Regulations, the Court of First Instance has “all such jurisdiction as is conferred on it by any request, in writing, by the parties to have the Court of First Instance determine the claim or dispute”[ADGM Courts — FAQs].

In plain terms: two parties can write an ADGM Courts clause into a contract and get a common-law forum, in English, with senior common-law judges — without either of them being an ADGM entity, and without arbitrating.

Where that is worth considering:

• A cross-border contract where neither side will accept the other’s home courts, and arbitration is disproportionate to the value.
• A joint venture between regional parties who want a neutral, credible forum without travelling to London or Singapore for it.
• Financing documents where the security package is best construed under common law.

Two cautions, since this page is not advice. A jurisdiction clause is only as good as its drafting and its enforceability where the assets actually are — an ADGM judgment still has to be recognised wherever you need to enforce it. And an opt-in clause should be drafted by someone who does this, not adapted from a template. It is a genuinely useful tool and a bad one to improvise.

The Divisions and Jurisdiction (Court of First Instance) Rules 2015 establish four divisions, each with exclusive jurisdiction over its subject matter[ADGM Courts — Divisions Rules]. Which one hears your claim is a rule, not a preference.

• Commercial and Civil Division. The general division — commercial and civil claims, judicial review, and exclusive jurisdiction over insolvency claims and disputes.
• Employment Division. Exclusive jurisdiction over employment claims regardless of value. A US$20,000 employment claim does not go to Small Claims; it goes here.
• Small Claims Division. Exclusive jurisdiction where the value of the claim is US$100,000[ADGM Courts — Divisions Rules] or less, and no jurisdiction where it exceeds that. Streamlined and simplified procedures apply.
• Real Property Division. Exclusive jurisdiction over real property claims — relevant given that the Registration Authority also handles real property registration in ADGM.

The employment carve-out is the one that catches people. If you are structuring an ADGM entity that will employ people, your employment disputes have a dedicated forum with its own division and its own fee scale, and the small-claims route is closed to them however modest the sum.

ADGM law, which includes English common law directly under the Application of English Law Regulations 2015 [ADGM Courts — English common law].

The distinction that matters, and that is misstated almost everywhere: English common law applies on an evergreen basis — as the body of case law stands from time to time — while 47 modified English statutes apply on a fixed date basis, with later English amendments having no effect in ADGM unless a specific ADGM enactment adopts them [ADGM — English law guidance].

Practically: a recent English Court of Appeal decision on contractual interpretation is persuasive material for an ADGM court in a way that a recent amendment to an English statute is not. If your dispute turns on a statutory provision, check which version of it has effect here. More on this at English common law in ADGM.

Language. ADGM Courts conduct all proceedings in English and all documents are to be submitted in English [ADGM Courts — FAQs]. No translation of the record, no interpreted hearings as a matter of course, no arguing about which version of a bilingual document governs.

Representation.ADGM Courts “have not instituted a registration system of lawyers as a pre-requisite for a right of audience”, with rights of audience dealt with under section 219 of the ADGM Courts Regulations[ADGM Courts — FAQs]. That is a meaningful practical difference: in many jurisdictions a foreign party must instruct a locally admitted agent alongside its own counsel, and pay both. ADGM also publishes guidance for self-represented litigants.

Process.Filing is digital, on ADGM’s eCourts platform[ADGM Courts]. The ADGM Court Procedure Rules and Practice Directions set out the detail, including the streamlined procedure for the Small Claims Division.

From the ADGM Courts Forms and Fees Reference Table, effective 8 February 2025[ADGM Courts — Fees]:

• Small claim — 3% of the claim[ADGM Courts — Fees], capped at USD 3,000. On a US$100,000 claim the 3% would be USD 3,000, so the cap binds exactly at the division’s ceiling.
• Employment claim — 2% of the value of the claim, minimum USD 100.
• Judicial review claim — USD 5,000.
• Commercial and civil claims — charged on a scale set out in the ADGM Courts Schedule of Fees rather than as a flat figure. We do not reproduce a number here because the reference table points to that separate schedule, and quoting a figure we have not read in the controlling document would be exactly what this site refuses to do. The schedule is linked in the sources below.
• Application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal — USD 500, subject to any additional hearing fees.
• Application notices — from USD 250 without a hearing in the Employment and Small Claims divisions, rising with hearing length in the Commercial and Civil Division.

ADGM also publishes Guidelines on Remission and Deferral of Court Fees, so the headline figure is not always the final one for a party who cannot meet it.

Court fees change and are set separately from Registration Authority fees. Fees, tax rules and requirements change. Verify current figures with the ADGM Registration Authority, the FSRA and the UAE Ministry of Finance before acting. This page is general information, not legal or tax advice.

Most comparisons between company jurisdictions are about setup cost and licence categories. Those are the easy parts to compare and the least likely to matter later.

What eventually matters is what happens when a shareholder wants out, a founder is dismissed, a counterparty does not pay, or an estate is contested. At that point the question is which court, applying which law, in which language, and how quickly. A well-drafted agreement in a jurisdiction whose courts will not construe it as intended is worth less than a plain one in a jurisdiction whose courts will.

That is the real argument for ADGM over a general UAE free zone, and it is largely independent of the fee difference. See ADGM business setup for what the rest of the exercise involves, and ADGM vs DIFC for the comparison with the other UAE centre that also has its own courts.