Judgments

The Court considered an application for costs following an earlier judgment in which the Claimant’s claim had succeeded in part. The application arose after the Defendant failed to make payment within the period specified by the Court’s order. The Court reviewed the parties’ submissions and the circumstances surrounding the non-payment, including information concerning restrictions on the Defendant’s bank account. Having considered the matter, the Court awarded the Claimant a portion of the legal costs sought and ordered payment of KZT 833,333.

The Court considered an application seeking a costs order against an individual who had been added to the proceedings for costs purposes only. The application arose following earlier costs orders that had been made in related proceedings and remained unpaid. After considering the procedural history and the parties’ submissions, the Court granted the application and held that the individual would be jointly and severally liable with the claimant for certain previously awarded costs. The Court directed that the issue of costs relating to the application itself would be determined separately.

The Court considered several issues arising from an ongoing dispute under a public-private partnership agreement relating to the construction and operation of a hospital. One issue concerned the extension of project deadlines following delays in connecting utility infrastructure, and the Court agreed to issue a formal order reflecting its earlier decision. The Court also addressed allegations regarding proceedings initiated in other courts despite existing anti-suit injunctions but decided not to take further action at that stage. In a related case, the Court adjourned proceedings for four weeks to allow the parties an opportunity to pursue settlement discussions.

The Court considered an application to vary a previously issued order. Following the application, the Court amended the earlier order in relation to one of the entities covered by it and made consequential amendments to the order. The remaining provisions of the order continued to apply.

The Claimant, a former employee of Smart Parking Technologies Ltd, sought payment of unpaid salary, pension contributions, accrued leave, and a contractual bonus of KZT 15 million. While the salary, leave, and pension contribution issues had already been resolved through the relevant authorities, the dispute remained over the bonus, which the employer had cancelled after the Claimant’s resignation. The AIFC Small Claims Court held that the employer’s decision to cancel the bonus was unreasonable because it failed to properly consider the employer’s own breaches, including delayed salary payments and unpaid pension contributions. The Court ordered the first Defendant to pay the Claimant the full bonus of KZT 15 million, dismissed the claim against the second Defendant, and made no order as to costs.

Pacific Trade House Limited brought proceedings against Altai Polymetals LLP and Terekty Ken Bayytu LLP before the AIFC Court of First Instance. Before the Court determined the merits of the dispute, the parties reached a settlement and the Claimant filed a request to discontinue the proceedings. The Court therefore ordered that the claim be discontinued and further directed that each party bear its own costs, making no order as to costs.