Judgments

iO Investments (Pty) Ltd brought a claim against Corundum Engineering LLC arising from a supply contract for goods. The Defendant admitted the contractual history and did not dispute the Claimant’s entitlement to payment for goods delivered under the contract. The AIFC Small Claims Court therefore ordered the Defendant to pay RUB 2,790,100. The Court declined to grant the requested declaratory relief regarding the delivery of goods and termination of contractual obligations because the proposed declarations were not sufficiently specified, while leaving the Claimant the opportunity to clarify and renew that request.

OCTOP S.A.A. Ltd brought a claim against HOLO MEDIA LLP seeking payment for equipment supplied under a sale and purchase agreement. The Сlaimant demonstrated that the equipment had been delivered, the Defendant had failed to make the agreed instalment payments, and had subsequently acknowledged the outstanding debt in writing. The AIFC Small Claims Court determined the case on the papers, found that the Defendant had breached its payment obligations, and ordered it to pay KZT 29,304,239.70, including the contractual debt and accrued penalty.

The Claimant challenged the impartiality and independence of an arbitrator under Article 22 of the AIFC Arbitration Regulations, alleging that the arbitrator’s academic affiliations, professional connections with members of the Defendant’s legal team, and several procedural decisions created a risk of bias. The AIFC Court admitted additional evidence but concluded that the alleged connections were remote, fell within the categories of professional relationships generally regarded as non-problematic under the IBA Guidelines, and did not require disclosure. The Court further held that the arbitrator’s procedural decisions reflected ordinary case management and provided no evidence of partiality. Accordingly, the challenge was dismissed, with costs to be determined separately.

The claimant sought an order requiring the extension of the construction deadline for a public-private partnership hospital project by twelve months following the connection of all necessary utility networks. The Court found that the parties had reached a binding agreement, recorded in settlement meeting minutes, under which the commissioning period would be extended after completion of the external engineering infrastructure. Rejecting the defendant’s arguments that additional formalities were required, the Court granted the claimant’s request and confirmed that the project deadline should be extended as agreed.

Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited challenged the AIFC Court's role in initiating enforcement proceedings after Execution Orders were issued in favor of Kazphosphate LLP and Kazphosphate Limited. The Court had previously dismissed the claim, and the successful defendants applied for recovery of their litigation costs. Applying Part 26 of the AIFC Court Rules, the Court held that the unsuccessful claimant should pay the reasonable and proportionate costs of the successful parties. The claimant was ordered to pay KZT 2,536,900 to Kazphosphate LLP and USD 5,684.00 to Kazphosphate Limited.

Following a judgment dismissing the claimants’ challenge to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction and rejecting the defendant’s application for an anti-suit injunction, the AIFC Court determined the issue of costs. The Court held that the claimants, having failed on the jurisdiction issue, must pay the defendant’s costs of USD 25,015.40. The Court also found that although the defendant’s anti-suit injunction application was unsuccessful, it had initially been justified, and therefore ordered the defendant to pay only half of the claimants’ costs on that issue, amounting to USD 7,250.