Judgments

The Claimant sought recognition and enforcement of a Dubai court-approved settlement agreement before the AIFC Court. The Court first considered jurisdiction and concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under the Constitutional Statute, as it does not extend to enforcement of foreign court judgments. Therefore, the claim was dismissed.

The court granted the Claimant’s request to recognize and enforce an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre on 13 May 2025, finding the application justified. It declared the prior settlement agreement no longer binding due to repudiation and ordered the Defendants to make substantial payments, cancel share certificates, and reimburse arbitration costs.

The case concerned ongoing disputes arising from a Public-Private Partnership agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant. During the case management hearing, the Court noted that some issues had been resolved while others remained outstanding. The Court entered judgment against the Defendant for payment obligations that had effectively been admitted and confirmed that the infectious diseases ward had already been accepted onto the public partner’s balance sheet. The Court also ordered the Defendant to ensure connection of external engineering networks by a specified date and to amend investment compensation documentation in line with approved state examination documents. Directions were issued for a further hearing in September 2025, including requirements for skeleton arguments and an agreed core bundle of documents.

The case concerned a dispute over unpaid invoices for accounting services provided under an accounting services agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant. The Court found that the Claimant had failed to properly perform the services for April 2024, including delays and significant errors in the accounting reports, and therefore the Defendant was entitled to object to payment and terminate the agreement. As a result, the Court concluded that the April invoice was not due and payable, and that the Defendant could potentially claim damages for the Claimant’s non-performance.

The Court had previously entered judgment in favour of the Claimants and issued execution orders for a significant judgment debt against the First Defendant. The Claimants later assigned the judgment debt to NEF & RAM LLP, which paid the full amount, and applied for substitution as the new judgment creditor. The Court held that the judgment debt was assignable property under AIFC law, rejected the First Defendant’s objections, and ordered substitution of NEF & RAM with new execution orders in its favour.

The Court considered an application for permission to appeal brought by Michael Wilson & Partners Limited against an order of 15 January 2025 relating to enforcement and correction of execution orders. The applicant failed to provide proper grounds of appeal or a skeleton argument, and its reliance on Rule 29.25 was found to be misconceived. The Court refused permission to appeal and dismissed the related applications by the defendants, finding no real prospect of success or other compelling reason to hear the appeal.