Үкімдер

Іздеу
ELEKTROMETAL SPÓtKA AKCYJNA АҚ қарсы «QARMET» АҚ
CASE No: AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0012
17.10.2025
Төрешілер
Эндрю Спинк КС
Түйіндеме
The Court considered the Defendant’s application challenging the Court’s jurisdiction and seeking to set aside the Claimant’s Claim Form. The Court Order dismissed the application, holding that the Court has jurisdiction and that the Claimant was entitled to proceed despite the alleged failure to follow pre-trial procedures. The case will continue, and the Defendant is required to file a full Defence within the specified time.
Төрешілер
Tom Montagu-Smith КC
Түйіндеме
The Court considered applications by the Claimant seeking to liquidate and wind up AIFC branches of foreign companies, but concluded that such branches are not separate legal entities and cannot be wound up. The Court Order dismissed the applications and clarified that the proper procedure is cancellation of registration by the Registrar of Companies. The Claimant and Defendants ultimately agreed that no Court intervention was required beyond directing deregistration.
Төрешілер
Лорд Фолкс KC
Түйіндеме
The Claimant applied for permission to appeal a decision dismissing his employment discrimination claim. The Court found that the original judgment correctly rejected claims of both direct and indirect discrimination, as any difference in treatment was justified by legitimate business reasons. Consequently, the Court refused permission to appeal, finding no real prospect of success.
Төрешілер
Сайма Ханиф КС
Түйіндеме
The Claimant sought recovery of funds paid under an investment agreement, arguing that the Defendant was not licensed by AFSA to provide financial services, rendering the contract invalid. The Defendant failed to respond or participate in the proceedings. The Court held that the agreement violated regulatory requirements and ordered restitution of the invested funds along with partial legal costs.
Төрешілер
Saima Hanif KC
Түйіндеме
The Claimant sought recovery of unpaid rent and accrued interest under a sublease agreement after the Defendant failed to file any defence. The AIFC Small Claims Court accepted the Claimant’s unchallenged evidence and ordered the Defendant to pay both the outstanding rent and contractual interest.
Төрешілер
Patricia Edwards
Түйіндеме
The Claimant filed a claim for unpaid rent and interest under a sublease agreement after the Defendant failed to respond or file a defence. The AIFC Small Claims Court found the Claimant’s evidence unchallenged and awarded the full amount of rent and accrued interest. No order as to costs was made.