Judgments

The Claimant applied to the AIFC Court for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre (IAC) concerning an unpaid commercial debt. The Court found the application justified and ordered the Defendant to pay USD 601,200, comprising the principal debt, contractual penalty, and KZT 2,000,000 in arbitration costs. The Court recognized and enforced the award while granting the Defendant 14 days to apply to set aside the enforcement order, during which enforcement would be stayed.

The Claimant applied to the AIFC Court for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award issued by the International Arbitration Centre (IAC) concerning a settlement agreement between ABS-Munai LLP and BI-alliimranu LLP. The Court found the application justified, recognized and enforced the award, and approved the parties’ amicable settlement confirming a debt of KZT 2,440,000, including the principal debt and arbitration costs. The Defendant was granted 14 days to apply to set aside the enforcement order, during which enforcement would be stayed.

The Claimant submitted a letter requesting termination of the proceedings, and the parties reached agreement on discontinuance. The Court considered the request and the parties’ agreement. Accordingly, the Court ordered that the claim be discontinued without determining the merits of the dispute.

The Claimant sought permission to appeal against an AIFC Court judgment that awarded monetary relief in relation to a vehicle dispute but declined to order the return of the car. The Court granted permission to appeal, finding that the appeal had a real prospect of success because the Defendant had acquired no rights in the vehicle and should return it to the Claimant. The Court directed that a short hearing be held, required the Claimant to submit a draft order for the return of the vehicle and any outstanding sums, and ordered that the Defendant be notified of the hearing.

The Court considered an application for clarification of a prior judgment concerning the distribution of debt and costs awarded to 138 bondholder claimants. The Court confirmed that each claimant’s entitlement should be determined according to the schedule submitted by the claimants, directed that payments be made through designated accounts for administrative convenience, and clarified that such payment arrangements did not alter the underlying legal rights of the parties. The Court further held that each claimant was entitled to a proportionate share of the costs award corresponding to their share of the debt recovery.

The Court considered an application by successful bondholders for recovery of legal costs following a prior judgment against the Defendants for unpaid bonds, interest, and penalties. The Court held that although the Claimants were successful in the main proceedings, costs could only be awarded in the Small Claims Court if the Defendants had acted unreasonably under Rule 26.9, which was not established on the facts. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Claimants’ applications for costs and default judgment.