Forty cases were filed before the Court in 2020. Twenty six judgments were issued throughout the year dealing with a broad range of matters including those relating to (i) banking and finance, (ii) breach of contract claims, (iii) debt recovery, (iv) employment, (v) immigration, (vi) insurance, (vii) regulatory breaches, and (viii) trusts. Judgments of the Court are available on the QICDRC website.
In a judgment reported at  QIC (F) 1, the Appellate Division of the Court upheld a judgment of the First Instance Circuit, reported at  QIC (F) 6, which had ordered the payment of €14,619,440.00 as a result of valid demands made on a performance bond and advance payment guarantee. The Court, in granting permission to appeal but dismissing the appeal, undertook a detailed analysis of the law relating to demand instruments, as well as the correct approach to the Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees (URDG 758).
In a judgment reported at  QIC (F) 5, the First Instance Circuit of the Court issued a further detailed judgment relating to performance bonds and advance payment guarantees, which included an analysis of the operation of the fraud defence in the context of an application for summary judgment.
In a judgment reported at  QIC (F) 14, the First Instance Circuit of the Court awarded the Claimant USD 768,040.00 plus interest and costs in a case involving the supply of ATMs by a QFC tech-company to the second largest bank in Qatar. The Court found that the bank had wrongfully terminated an agreement between the parties which amounted to an anticipatory breach of contract.
In a judgment reported at  QIC (F) 2, the First Instance Circuit of the Court ordered that a financial penalty imposed by the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority (‘QFCRA’) against a bank in the sum of QAR 200,000,000.00 was a debt payable to and recoverable by the QFCRA pursuant to Article 59(4) of the QFC Financial Services Regulations.
In a judgment reported at  QIC (F) 12, the First Instance Circuit of the Court ordered that the financial penalty of QAR 30,000,000, imposed on the Respondent by the Applicant, is a debt payable to and recoverable by the Applicant. The Court also held that the Applicant was entitled to recover interest at the rate of 5% from the date of the judgment until payment. The Court rejected the argument that the Applicant should be entitled to recover pre-judgment interest, observing that the financial penalty imposed on the Respondent was not converted into a debt until the judgment was issued.
In ordering a QFC company to provide documentation to a former employee to assist with the employee’s transfer of sponsorship request (from her former employer to her husband), the First Instance Circuit of the Court observed that “Were the narrower construction to be adopted [i.e. that employers only had a duty to transfer to new employers, not spouses], we perceive it could well result in particular difficulties for women who are disproportionately likely to give up employed status for reasons relating to pregnancy and childbirth. Indeed, the perverse result of a narrow construction would be to challenge the ability of families to remain together in Qatar where two members of a couple came to Qatar with separate contracts of employment but thereafter one member of the couple gives up work and wishes to remain as a dependent of their employed spouse. That cannot have been the intention of the Code."- see  QIC (F) 10.
In a judgment reported at  QIC (F) 16, the First Instance Circuit of the Court awarded summary judgment in favour of an employee who sought to recover unpaid salaries.
In a judgment reported at  QIC (F) 4, the First Instance Circuit of the Court determined that it had jurisdiction in a dispute between an insurance broker and an insurance company where the former was licensed and regulated by the QFC and the latter was established in Qatar, albeit outside the QFC. Rejecting a challenge to its jurisdiction, the Court observed that “…it is well settled in this jurisdiction that Article 8.3.c/3 of the QFC Law confers jurisdiction on this Court where one of the parties to a civil or commercial dispute is an entity established in the QFC and the other party is a contractor with it, even where that other party is established elsewhere, including in Qatar outside the QFC.” The Court further observed that Article 2(3) of the QFC Law (which concerns certain designations by the appropriate Minister) had no application to an entity such as the Claimant which had been established in the QFC and operated from it.
In a judgment reported at  QIC (F) 13, the First Instance Circuit of the Court) dismissed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court, finding that a clause that referred to “the Qatari courts” included the Qatar International Court which is “clearly a Qatari court”. The Court observed that the case at hand involved the financial affairs of an entity established in the QFC and that the parties had not agreed that some other court should have jurisdiction over the dispute, thus the presumptive provisions of the QFC Law applied.
In a judgment reported at  QIC (A) 4 the Appellate Division of the Court refused permission to appeal in respect of a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis that the challenge was out of time. In any event, the Court concluded that there was no basis for contending that the First Instance Circuit’s judgment on the merits was erroneous or would result in substantial injustice.