Judgments

Dimpulse Limited applied to the AIFC Court for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre (IAC). After reviewing the award, the Court found the application justified and ordered Green Logistics Solutions Ltd to pay KZT 2,864,700 together with arbitration costs of KZT 46,626.30. The Court also granted the Defendant the right to apply to set aside the enforcement order within 14 days of service and suspended enforcement pending the expiry or determination of such application.

AKASHI Data Center Plc. applied to the AIFC Court for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre (IAC) following the termination of a general contractor agreement. The arbitral award ordered VestaStroyService LLP to pay outstanding debt, a contractual penalty for delay in the performance of works, and arbitration-related costs. After reviewing the award, the AIFC Court granted the application and ordered enforcement of the arbitral award, while preserving the Claimant’s right to apply to set aside the enforcement order within 14 days.

Following the dismissal of an application challenging the independence and impartiality of a sole arbitrator, the AIFC Court considered the issue of costs. The unsuccessful party argued that each side should bear its own costs because the challenge was brought to resolve legitimate concerns regarding the arbitrator’s impartiality. The Court rejected that argument, holding that the general rule requiring the unsuccessful party to pay the successful party’s costs should apply. After assessing the reasonableness and proportionality of the legal fees claimed, the Court ordered the applicant to pay KZT 4,250,000 in costs, representing 85% of the amount sought by the successful party.

Samruk Service Group LLP sought recovery of the final payment of KZT 8 million under a construction contract relating to the construction of a beach bar and related facilities at the Tetysblu theme park. The Defendant argued that the works contained defects and were not completed in accordance with the contractual specifications, and counterclaimed for a proportional reduction of the contract price. The AIFC Small Claims Court found that the Claimant had substantially performed the contract but that certain elements of the works did not comply with the agreed specifications or quality requirements. The Court held that the Defendant was entitled to a proportional reduction of the contract price in the amount of KZT 3.5 million and ordered payment of the remaining KZT 4.5 million, together with the court fee.

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.