Judgments

Cashdrive challenged a Written Directive issued by the financial regulator, arguing that the regulator had acted unfairly, misapplied regulatory requirements, and unlawfully enforced currency and client-classification rules against its lending business. The Court found that the regulator had committed procedural errors by failing to follow the prescribed decision-making process, but concluded that those failures were not material because Cashdrive was subsequently able to make extensive representations, which were considered by the regulator. The Court further held that the Currency Rules applied prospectively to Cashdrive’s operations notwithstanding the earlier issuance of its licence, and rejected the argument that Cashdrive had a legitimate expectation exempting it from compliance with later regulatory requirements.

The Claimants, being 107 bondholders, brought proceedings against the First Defendant as issuer and the Second Defendant as guarantor, seeking recovery of sums due following alleged non-payment on maturity of the bonds. The Court granted default judgment against the First Defendant after finding that it had been properly served but failed to file an acknowledgment of service or defence within the required time limits. The Court awarded the principal, coupon, and interest sums, made costs orders in principle, and reserved certain procedural issues including publication of the Claimants’ names and further interest calculations.

The Appellant sought permission to appeal against the decision of the AIFC Court Small Claims Court concerning employment-related claims against Khan Tengri Capital LLP and Apex Management GP Ltd, including unpaid wages, termination issues, and alleged moral distress damages. The Court refused permission to appeal, holding that the judge had properly assessed the evidence, correctly found no concurrent employment with Apex Management, and that the moral distress claim was unsupported in law or fact. The Court concluded that the appeal had no real prospect of success and disclosed no other compelling reason for it to be heard.

The Claimant brought proceedings against AIX in relation to a dispute arising under a tripartite scholarship agreement concerning whether remote work performed in the USA qualified as relevant work under the agreement. The Court found that the core dispute lay with CIP, which was not a party to the proceedings, and that the AIFC Court lacked jurisdiction to determine the Claimant’s substantive dispute with CIP. The Court further held that there was insufficient evidence that AIX was a party to the tripartite agreement and dismissed the claim in full.

The Claimants, Mr. Serik Kusayev and Mr. Rakhat Bolatov, brought a claim against the Defendant for unpaid settlement sums arising out of employment dispute agreements concluded on 30 March 2023. The Court found that the Defendant failed to pay the agreed amounts, did not file a Defence, and did not engage in the proceedings, despite being properly served. The AIFC Court of Small Claims allowed the claim in full, awarding the outstanding sums and granting the Claimants their legal and notary costs due to the Defendant’s unreasonable non-engagement.