Judgments

The Applicants sought to set aside or reopen several AIFC Court judgments that had refused permission to appeal and awarded costs against them. The Court dismissed the application, finding that it failed to identify any exceptional circumstances, procedural unfairness, or real injustice that could justify reopening the cases. The Court further certified both the application and earlier appeals as totally without merit and warned that continued meritless litigation could result in restrictions on the Applicants’ ability to bring further claims.

The Defendant sought an extension of time and permission to appeal two AIFC Court judgments arising from a dispute over increased construction costs for a hospital project. The Court refused both requests, finding that the appeal against the first judgment was significantly out of time and that no satisfactory explanation for the delay had been provided. The Court further held that none of the proposed grounds of appeal had a realistic prospect of success, as they largely challenged factual findings already determined at trial or sought to raise new arguments that could not be introduced on appeal.

The Court considered an important legal issue concerning the scope of its jurisdiction, which had been interpreted differently by judges at first instance in this and other recent cases. Given the conflicting judicial approaches, the Court found that appellate review was necessary to achieve legal certainty and provide authoritative guidance. Accordingly, permission to appeal was granted.

Following the Claimant’s request and with the agreement of both parties, the Court ordered the discontinuance of the claim. The proceedings were formally terminated without further adjudication.

The case concerned whether the AIFC Court had jurisdiction to recognize and enforce an ICC arbitral award issued by a tribunal seated in Switzerland. After hearing full arguments from both parties, the Court concluded that the AIFC Constitutional Statute does not grant jurisdiction to enforce foreign arbitral awards that fall outside the specific jurisdictional gateways established by Article 13. As a result, the Court set aside the earlier enforcement order, holding that neither Article 13 nor Article 14 of the Constitutional Statute provided a sufficient legal basis for enforcing the ICC award in the AIFC Court.

The Claimants applied to the AIFC Court to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre. The Court granted the application and ordered Victory Kaz Energy LLP and its guarantor to pay jointly and severally the outstanding debt, legal costs, arbitrator’s fees, and a portion of the recovered penalty. The Court further directed that all recovered amounts be transferred to the bank account of the iKapitalist investment platform administrator for distribution among investors in accordance with the relevant agreements and investor register.