Judgments

The claimant sought permission to appeal a judgment and an extension of time for filing the appeal. The Court refused permission, finding that the proposed appeal had no realistic prospect of success and noting that issues concerning an initial payment shortfall had already been corrected. The Court also confirmed that the claimant was not entitled to salary after 1 May 2025 because he had not attended work, and therefore no claim for late payment of May wages could arise.

The Claimant applied to the AIFC Court for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre. The Court granted the application and ordered the Defendants to pay jointly and severally a debt of KZT 335.4 million, together with arbitration costs and certain litigation-related expenses, including forensic examination, travel, and accommodation costs. The Defendants were given 14 days to apply to set aside the order before enforcement may proceed.

The Claimant applied to the AIFC Court for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre concerning a commercial contract dispute. The Court granted the application and ordered Mega Logistics KZ LLP to pay the outstanding contractual debt, penalty interest for delayed payment, arbitrator’s fees, legal representation expenses, and arbitration costs. The Defendant was granted a 14-day period to challenge the order before enforcement proceedings may commence.

The Claimant sought court approval under the AIFC Companies Regulations for a merger with the Defendant LLP as part of a corporate restructuring. The Court found that all procedural requirements were satisfied, including shareholder approval, creditor notification, and financial adequacy, and that the arrangement adequately protected third-party interests. It sanctioned the merger and ordered its implementation, confirming that such amalgamation is permissible even where one entity is a non-AIFC LLP.

The Court considered a challenge to the jurisdiction of an Arbitral Tribunal in an IAC arbitration, focusing on whether the seat of arbitration was within the AIFC or outside it. The Court held that the arbitration clause must be interpreted as selecting the AIFC as the seat, thereby confirming the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and dismissing the challenge. The Court also dismissed the application for an anti-suit injunction as unnecessary in the circumstances.

The Court refused the Claimant permission to appeal, finding the application fundamentally flawed, filed by the wrong party, and lacking any real prospects of success. Although the general rule is that respondents do not recover costs in such applications, the Court departed from it due to the defective and misleading nature of the Claimant’s submissions and the need for the Second Defendant to respond substantively. As a result, the Claimant was ordered to pay KZT 1,250,000 in costs.