Judgments

The Court reviewed an arbitration dispute involving a loan agreement and related guarantee agreements where the arbitrator had only decided the claim against the borrower, ECO, and declined jurisdiction over the guarantors. The Court upheld the arbitrator’s award, finding no legal error, but ordered that the unresolved claims against the guarantors be remitted to the arbitration centre for determination by a newly appointed arbitrator.

The Court issued a default judgment in favour of the Claimant after the Defendant failed to file an acknowledgment of service or defence. It confirmed that it had jurisdiction and that proper service had been effected, and therefore the conditions for default judgment under the AIFC Court Rules were satisfied. The Court declared the contract terminated due to impossibility of performance by both parties. Any further consequential relief was not granted at this stage and would require a separate application.

The Defendant’s application for permission to appeal was refused. The case concerned a Public-Private Partnership dispute over management fees, where the Defendant argued that it was entitled to suspend payments due to a disputed inspection by the Claimant. The Court held that the attempted inspection went beyond the contractual limits of Clause 114(2), so the Claimant was entitled to refuse access and the Defendant had no valid grounds to suspend payments. The appeal grounds, including allegations of bias and misinterpretation of the contract, were found to be unsubstantiated and having no real prospect of success, with no procedural irregularity or other compelling reason to hear an appeal.

The Claimant sought court approval for a proposed corporate arrangement to reconstruct the Claimant and Defendant through amalgamation under an agreement dated 12 September 2024. The Court sanctioned the arrangement pursuant to the AIFC Companies Regulations and ordered that the two companies be amalgamated on the terms set out in the agreement.

The Claimant brought a claim for repayment of matured bonds issued by the First Defendant and guaranteed by the Second Defendant, including interest and costs. The Court had previously awarded the principal sum and court fee, and later considered the Claimant’s application for additional legal costs. Although the Claimant was the successful party, the Court refused to award further costs, finding no unreasonable conduct by the Defendants under Rule 26.9 of the AIFC Court Rules.