Judgments

The Claimant brought a claim under a real estate investment agreement, alleging that the Defendants failed to return the invested funds within the agreed period. The Court found the claim proven in the absence of a Defence, declared the agreement terminated, and ordered the Defendants to pay the amount jointly and severally. The Court also refused to award costs, as no unreasonable conduct by the Defendants was established under the applicable AIFC Rules.

The AIFC Court granted a short extension of time to allow the Second Defendant's application challenging earlier directions and varied the existing Execution Orders by correcting the judgment debtor's corporate identification while retaining details of its Kazakhstan branch to facilitate enforcement. The Court held that questions regarding enforcement against the branch's assets are matters for the Kazakh enforcement process and refused to strike out the Claimant's application, making no order as to costs.

The Court recognised and enforced an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre of Kazakhstan, ordering the debtor to pay the principal debt, contractual penalty, and arbitration costs arising from a loan agreement. The order is subject to a short set-aside period during which the Defendant may apply to challenge enforcement, and enforcement is stayed until that period (or any such application) is finally resolved.

The applicant sought an extension of time and permission to appeal to the AIFC Court of Appeal against a decision upholding an AFSA regulatory determination. The Court dismissed the applications on the basis that it had no jurisdiction to hear further appeals from such decisions under Article 26(5) of the AIFC Court Regulations.

The dispute concerns a FIDIC-based construction contract for road works in Kazakhstan, where the Claimant challenges dispute board and engineer decisions that awarded the Defendant significant sums for multiple delay and cost claims, including COVID-19 impacts and extraction tax increases. The Court focused on evidential deficiencies, particularly the Defendant’s failure to produce supporting appendices, concluding that the Decisions carried limited weight and required full judicial reassessment of liability and quantum.

The Court allowed the appeal in a vehicle ownership dispute, finding that the car remained the property of the Claimant under the mediation settlement agreement as no payments had been made by the Defendant. It ordered the Defendant to return the vehicle and pay a penalty together with court fees, expenses, and translation costs within the specified deadline.