A28 v B28 [2026] ADGMCFI 0012 (17 April 2026)

A28 v B28 [2026] ADGMCFI 0012 (17 April 2026)

The Court held that, by agreeing to ICC arbitration under the ICC Rules, the parties accepted that the ICC Court could override the unilateral appointment right in exceptional circumstances under Article 12(9) of the ICC Rules. There was no breach of mandatory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, and the ICC Court's decisions were final and not subject to review by the ADGM Court. The claim was dismissed and the ICC Court's appointment of the sole arbitrator was upheld.

Citation
[2026] ADGMCFI 0012
Parties
Claimant: A28; Defendant: B28
Jurisdiction
United Arab Emirates
Judgment Date
17 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Arbitration Claim / Judgment After Hearing and Written Submissions
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Arbitrator Appointment, Institutional Arbitration Rules, Party Autonomy, Supervisory Jurisdiction of Seat Court, Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements
Arbitration Commercial Law Arbitrator Appointment Institutional Arbitration Rules Party Autonomy Supervisory Jurisdiction of Seat Court Interpretation of Arbitration Agreements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A28

Claimant

B28

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Arbitration Claim / Judgment After Hearing and Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the ADGM Court have jurisdiction to set aside ICC Court decisions appointing or confirming an arbitrator under the ICC Rules?
  2. 2 Is the Court's exercise of such jurisdiction precluded by Article 11(4) of the ICC Rules or sections 19 and 21 of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, by agreeing to ICC arbitration under the ICC Rules, the parties accepted that the ICC Court could override the unilateral appointment right in exceptional circumstances under Article 12(9) of the ICC Rules. There was no breach of mandatory provisions of the ADGM Arbitration Regulations, and the ICC Court's decisions were final and not subject to review by the ADGM Court. The claim was dismissed and the ICC Court's appointment of the sole arbitrator was upheld.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Arbitration Claim is dismissed.
  • Mr AB has been validly appointed by the ICC Court as the sole arbitrator in the ICC Proceedings.