Arbitral Digest

Matter

CLAIMANT A and CLAIMANT B v DEFENDANT (AIFC Court of First Instance, Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0053)

Case no.
IAC Arbitration Case No. [...]
Seat
Kazakhstan
Applicable rules
IAC Arbitration and Mediation Rules
  1. 22 June 2026Kazakhstan

    22 June 2026Kazakhstan

    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Astana International Financial Centre in Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0053 dated 22 June 2026

    Court of First Instance of the Astana International Financial Centre

    Case no.
    AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0053
    Citation
    AIFC Court of First Instance, Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0053, judgment of 22 June 2026
    Decision summary
    The Court held that the arbitration clause selected the AIFC as the seat, confirmed the Arbitral Tribunal's jurisdiction, dismissed the challenge to the Determination of Competence, dismissed the anti-suit injunction application, and reserved costs.

    Supporting details

    6 authorities · 12 participants
    CLAIMANT A
    Representative
    Mr Alexander Korobeinikov (For: CLAIMANT A · CLAIMANT B)
    Representative
    Mr Khaidar Beissov (For: CLAIMANT A · CLAIMANT B)
    Representative
    Ms Alissa Inshakova (For: CLAIMANT A · CLAIMANT B)
    Representative
    Baker McKenzie Kazakhstan BV (For: CLAIMANT A · CLAIMANT B)
    CLAIMANT B
    Representative
    Mr Alexander Korobeinikov (For: CLAIMANT A · CLAIMANT B)
    Representative
    Mr Khaidar Beissov (For: CLAIMANT A · CLAIMANT B)
    Representative
    Ms Alissa Inshakova (For: CLAIMANT A · CLAIMANT B)
    Representative
    Baker McKenzie Kazakhstan BV (For: CLAIMANT A · CLAIMANT B)
    DEFENDANT
    Representative
    Mr Bakhyt Tukulov (For: DEFENDANT)
    Representative
    Ms Maria Petrenko (For: DEFENDANT)
    Representative
    Mr Artem Kuznetsov (For: DEFENDANT)
    Representative
    TKS Disputes (For: DEFENDANT)
    Court of First Instance of the Astana International Financial Centre

    Authorities cited

    6
    • Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan On Arbitration
      statute
    • AIFC Arbitration Regulations 2017
      statute
    • Constitutional Statute on the AIFC (Constitutional Statute No.438-V ZRK of 7 December 2015)
      statute
    • Dhir v Waterfront Properties ([2009] DIFC CFI 011)
      case-law
    • Success K LLP v Ministry of Healthcare of the Republic of Kazakhstan
      case-law
    • Redfern & Hunter on International Arbitration (6th ed., 2015)
      academic
  2. Date not availableKazakhstan

    Date not availableKazakhstan

    Arbitral Tribunal Determination of Competence

    International Arbitration Centre of the Astana International Financial Centre

    Decision summary
    The Arbitral Tribunal determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute and that the seat of the arbitration was the AIFC, Republic of Kazakhstan.

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    CLAIMANT A
    CLAIMANT B
    DEFENDANT
    International Arbitration Centre of the Astana International Financial Centre
  3. Date not availableKazakhstan

    Date not availableKazakhstan

    Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Court of the City of Astana decision on appeal

    Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Court of the City of Astana

    Decision summary
    The Judicial Collegium rejected the appeal against the further ruling returning Claimant A's claim; the decision was not subject to further appeal or review.
  4. Date not availableKazakhstan

    Date not availableKazakhstan

    Specialised Interdistrict Economic Court of Astana further ruling returning Claimant A's claim

    Specialised Interdistrict Economic Court of Astana

    Decision summary
    The court returned Claimant A's re-submitted claim in the parallel proceedings concerning invalidation of the arbitration agreement.
  5. Date not availableKazakhstan

    Date not availableKazakhstan

    Specialised Interdistrict Economic Court of Astana ruling returning Claimant A's initial claim

    Specialised Interdistrict Economic Court of Astana

    Decision summary
    The court returned Claimant A's initial claim because the dispute was subject to arbitration and the jurisdiction issue had to be decided first by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Matter record

Report a correction

CLAIMANT A and CLAIMANT B v DEFENDANT (AIFC Court of First Instance, Case No. AIFC-C/CFI/2025/0053) · Matter