Judgments

The case concerns a construction contract where a disputes board and engineer issued decisions awarding the contractor compensation and time extensions. The employer complied with the decisions and made payments but later sought to challenge and recover those sums before the AIFC Court. The Court held that the employer retained the right to challenge the decisions under a contractual addendum and ordered further directions for trial preparation.

The claimant sought to set aside an IAC arbitral award and related AIFC Court enforcement order on the ground that they allegedly conflicted with the public policy of Kazakhstan due to an alleged scheme to frustrate creditor enforcement. The Court found that the underlying guarantee, debt recognition, and mediation settlement agreements were valid and enforceable, and that the arbitral award did not contradict any binding decisions of Kazakhstan courts. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application to set aside the award and enforcement order.

The Claimant sought recognition and enforcement of an IAC arbitral award concerning termination of a preliminary real estate sale agreement and recovery of monetary sums. The AIFC Court found the application justified and ordered termination of the agreement and payment of KZT 23,356,650 plus arbitration and legal costs by the Defendant. The Court also granted the Defendant 14 days to apply to set aside the enforcement order, during which enforcement was stayed.

The Claimant sought recovery of amounts due under bonds issued by the First Defendant and guaranteed by the Second Defendant. The Court entered judgment against the First Defendant based on its express admission of liability in its Defence and granted default judgment against the Second Defendant for failing to acknowledge service or file a Defence despite being properly served. The Court ordered the Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay US$ 259,530.80 together with US$ 7,000 in legal costs.

The Appellant sought an oral renewal of its application for permission to appeal after the AIFC Court of Appeal had refused permission on paper in proceedings concerning the recognition and enforcement of English and Dutch court judgments. The Court held that the AIFC Court Rules provide no right to an oral renewal following a paper refusal of permission to appeal and found the application misconceived. Accordingly, the application was dismissed, while the issue of costs was reserved for further submissions.

The parties reached a settlement agreement that fully resolved both the underlying claim and the pending appeal before the AIFC Court. Upon the parties’ joint request, the Court set aside the previous order, approved the settlement agreement, and directed that all further proceedings be terminated except as necessary to implement the settlement terms. The Court further ordered that no additional order would be made in relation to the appeal.