Judgments

The dispute arose from an employment relationship in which the Claimant sought unpaid employment benefits and alleged constructive dismissal, while the Defendant filed a counterclaim alleging breaches of non-compete obligations and other contractual duties. The Court found that the Claimant had voluntarily resigned rather than been constructively dismissed, ordered the Defendant to pay outstanding employment-related sums and mandatory contributions, and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim in its entirety.

The Court considered the Defendant’s application for costs together with the Claimants’ objections and additional submissions. It concluded that the Defendant was the successful party in both matters and awarded costs in its favour under the AIFC Court Rules 2018, finding the claimed costs to be reasonable.

The Court was asked to recognise and enforce an IAC arbitration award arising from a dispute within an LLP, including orders affecting company participation and share ownership. The Court granted the application, ordering the exclusion of the Defendant from the LLP and the compulsory buyout of his 50% share at market value, with enforcement subject to a short set-aside period.

The Claimant applied for an order to arrest the Defendant’s assets up to the value of the claim, arguing that the pledged properties might be insufficient to satisfy it and that there was a risk of dissipation of assets. The Defendant opposed the application, stating that there was no evidence of asset dissipation and that the pledged properties provided adequate security. The Court refused to grant the freezing injunction at this stage, pending valuation of the pledged properties.

The Court confirmed its earlier judgment and ordered the First Defendant to withdraw its claim pending before the Specialized Interdistrict Economic Court of Almaty City. The Court also required the First Defendant to withdraw any related claims in other courts and prohibited it from pursuing parallel proceedings concerning the same dispute.

The Court considered the Claimant’s application for costs following its earlier judgment in favour of the Claimant after trial. It found that the costs claimed were reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, and ordered the Defendant to pay them, rejecting the Defendant’s objections. The Court also issued an execution order for an undisputed contractual penalty and directed the parties to file further submissions regarding outstanding management fees.