Judgments

The case concerns the procedure for enforcing AIFC Court judgments in Kazakhstan through execution orders and their transmission to private enforcement agents under a Cooperation Agreement. The claimant challenged the court registry’s role, alleging it improperly initiated enforcement proceedings, but the court held that the registry performed only administrative functions and acted lawfully within the legal framework. Although a procedural error was identified, the court exercised its discretion to refuse relief, concluding that setting aside the enforcement process would serve no practical purpose and cause unnecessary delay.

The Claimant applied to the AIFC Court to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre. The Court found the application justified and approved a settlement agreement requiring the Defendants to repay a debt in instalments, with penalties for any delay. The order also allows immediate enforcement in case of breach and provides the Defendants a 14-day period to challenge the decision.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file for permission to appeal against earlier Court decisions. The Court found that the application was significantly out of time and that no valid reason for the delay was provided, emphasizing the importance of finality in litigation. Accordingly, the application for extension of time was refused.

The Claimant applied for permission to appeal a decision dismissing his employment discrimination claim. The Court found that the original judgment correctly rejected claims of both direct and indirect discrimination, as any difference in treatment was justified by legitimate business reasons. Consequently, the Court refused permission to appeal, finding no real prospect of success.

The Claimant sought recognition and enforcement of an IAC arbitral award ordering the Defendants to repay bond value, interest, and arbitration costs. The Court found the application justified and enforced the award, holding the Defendants jointly and severally liable. The Defendants were granted a 14-day period to apply to set aside the order, during which enforcement is suspended.

The Second Defendant applied to set aside a default judgment entered against it in an investment dispute, arguing improper service and наличие защитных доводов. The Court found that service was valid and that the Defendant failed to show any real prospect of successfully defending the claim. Consequently, the application to set aside the judgment was dismissed.