98 Cases
2024 was our second busiest year in terms of cases filed on record, following an exceptionally busy year in 2023. The cases filed were of increasing sophistication, again spanning the whole range of civil and commercial matters. We held our largest number of hearings and managed exceptionally well with hybrid hearings where some participants were in the courtroom physically, with others participating online from abroad. We also issued 93 judgments throughout the course of the year, our highest number.
Arbitration
B v C [2024] QIC (F) 20
The Court dismissed the first application to set aside an arbitral award under the QFC Arbitration Regulations 2005, Article 41, citing public policy grounds. The Court emphasised the similarity between the Regulations and the UNCITRAL Model Law, which promotes arbitration's finality and enforcement. It held that "interest of the QFC" aligns with "public policy" and that challenges to arbitral awards should be rare, with minimal intervention. Mistakes of law or fact do not justify setting aside awards. The Court also confirmed its jurisdiction despite neither party being registered in the Qatar Financial Centre.
Banking
Ahmed Al-Khateeb v Nexus Financial Services WLL [2024] QIC (A) 6
In this case, a retail customer of Nexus Financial Services in Qatar appealed a decision dismissing his claims regarding unsuitable investment advice provided by Nexus in 2017. The Court (Justices Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, Chelva Rajah SC, and Fritz Brand) granted permission to appeal on one ground, resulting in an order for Nexus to pay Al-Khateeb $175,634.50 in damages and cover his legal costs. Nexus, authorised only for insurance mediation, was found to have failed regulatory duties under the Conduct of Business Rules 2007 regarding "know your customer" and suitability of advice.
Breach of Contract
Aegis Services LLC v (1) EMobility Certification Services; (2) Muhammad Nawab; (3) Mohith Mohan; and (4) Marilyn Biares [2024] QIC (C) 2
In this case, the Claimant launched proceedings against the Defendants for breach of non-competition clauses and misuse of confidential information. The Claimant failed to obtain an interim injunction. The Claimant thereafter withdrew the claim. The Registrar awarded the Defendants only a small proportion of the costs claimed. The core reason for the principal reduction was that the Defendants had not notified the Claimant that they were represented by lawyers until shortly before the hearing. Using the principle in F v D [2023] QIC (F) 4, costs could only be claimed post-notification.
Al Hattab Security Services v Flank Technologies LLC [2024] QIC (F) 12
In this case, the Court (Justices Dr Hassan Al-Sayed, George Arestis and Fritz Brand) awarded the Claimant outstanding sums owed in full due to a breach of contract.
Devisers Advisory Services LLC v Farwin Farook Muhammed [2024] QIC (F) 42
In this case, the Claimant was to provide services to the Defendant’s wife to obtain a visa to the United Kingdom. The Defendant’s wife was unable to obtain a particular certificate and thus the Defendant sought a refund. The Claimant refused to reimburse the Defendant, citing a provision in the contract to this effect. The Claimant brought proceedings for specific performance and declarations. The Defendant brought a counterclaim for a refund or partial refund. The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) was of the view that this case was legally on all fours with M v D [2024] QIC (A) 2, in which – in very similar factual circumstances – the Court directed a partial refund from the company, allowing it to retain a sum for work already done under article 107 of the QFC Contract Regulations 2005.
DWF LLP (Qatar Branch) v Roland Berger LLC [2024] QIC (F) 38
In this case, the Claimant law firm sued a former client for unpaid legal fees, arguing that it undertook significant work out-of-scope for which it should be compensated. Although the Court (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, Fritz Brand and Ali Malek KC) found that the firm did indeed undertake much out-of-scope work, there was no agreed basis for remuneration of this work and therefore the Claimant was only entitled to the fixed fee originally agreed.
Manan Jain v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2024] QIC (A) 2 & Asma Abdulaziz Al-Saud v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2024] QIC (A) 3
In two similar cases, the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) partially overruled the First Instance Circuit which had awarded both Claimants damages for breach of contract on the grounds that force majeure applied (article 94(1) of the QFC Contract Regulations 2005). However, the Appellate Division was of the view that, instead, article 107 (liquidated damages) and article 115 (restitution) of the 2005 Regulations applied to M v D and A v D, respectively. The Court also ordered that the Respondent might retain a partial sum to reflect the work that had been done in both cases.
Mansib Pazhedath v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2024] QIC (F) 14
In this case, the Court (Justices Dr Hassan Al Sayed, Fritz Brand, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) dismissed the Claimant’s claims against the Defendant. The Court found that the refusal of the Claimant’s UK visa application was due to errors made by him, not by the Defendant. The Claimant’s claims for compensation and a refund were denied.
Sandy Beach Refreshments Cafeteria LLC v AHK Enterprise LLC [2024] QIC (A) 8
In this case, the Court (Justices Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, Her Honour Frances Kirkhan CBE, and Lord Hamilton) refused Vahk Enterprise LLC's (AHK) application for permission to appeal a prior ruling favouring Sandy Beach Refreshments Cafeteria LLC. The dispute was related to a terminated rental agreement for a kiosk during the FIFA World Cup 2022. The First Instance Circuit had awarded Sandy Beach QAR 20,000, rejecting AHK's counterclaim of QAR 5,000. The Appellate Division found no substantial grounds to suggest an error in the initial judgment, concluding the case fell within the Small Claims Track and posed no significant risk of serious injustice.
Ahmed Al-Khateeb v Nexus Financial Services WLL [2023] QIC (F) 29
Ahmed Al-Khateeb v Nexus Financial Services WLL [2023] QIC (F) 29 was a case in which the First Instance Circuit (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, Ali Malek KC, and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) dismissed the Claimant’s claims against a financial services company with whom he had invested a sum of money. The Claimant alleged that the Defendant – through its agent(s) – had misrepresented the nature of structured products inducing him to invest in them and causing him loss. The Court ruled that the claims were not credible and that the Claimant (i) was an experienced investor who was aware that it was possible to suffer losses as well as make gains; (ii) had been made aware of the key terms of the investments, including their risks; (iii) had not proved that the representations he alleged were in fact made; (iv) had not proved that he was the victim of any falsehood or misrepresentation by representatives of the Defendant; (v) was not induced by any representation made to him to enter into the investments; and (vi) had not demonstrated any breach of contract or duty of care by the Defendant that caused him loss or damage.
HKA Global Limited v China Railway 18th Bureau Group WLL (In Liquidation) [2024] QIC (F) 22
In this case, the Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favour of the Claimant, which is a company providing advisory services in the construction industry. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant the amount of QAR 355,857.06, which is the amount that remained unpaid after the Defendant’s liquidation in March. The Claimant’s claim for additional damages of QAR 100,000 was denied.
Company Law
Qatar Financial Centre Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC [2024] QIC (F) 1
In this case, the Court (Justices Sir William Blair, Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al Marzouqi) ordered the winding up of the Respondent. The company owed various monies to the authorities and others. However, the Court was not able to determine what monies in the company’s accounts were client monies. Additionally, it found that the conditions for a winding-up were met under the QFC Insolvency Regulations 2005.
HKA Global Limited v Setta Wa Eshroon SOLB WLL (In Liquidation and represented by its Judicial Liquidator, Mr Mareshi Abdulaziz Abdalla) [2024] QIC (F) 3
In this case, the Claimant successfully claimed against a former commercial partner now in liquidation. The Claimant filed an application for summary judgment simultaneously with its claim. The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC, and Dr Muna Al Marzouqi) was of the view that nothing precluded this approach. Furthermore, nothing either in the QFC laws or the laws of the State of Qatar prevented a claim from being brought against a company in liquidation.
Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Centre Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC, and Mohammed Al-Emadi [2024] QIC (A) 5
The Court (Justices Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, Fritz Brand, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) refused Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC (HCW) permission to appeal against a Winding Up Order issued on 8 January 2024. HCW was ordered to be wound up due to insolvency and regulatory misconduct. The Court upheld the original decision, citing insufficient funds to meet debts and unresolved issues regarding asset ownership. HCW's grounds for appeal, including claims of excessive penalties and improper proceedings, were rejected as without merit. The appointment of Joint Liquidators was also affirmed.
Qatar Financial Centre Authority v CanQonnect Solutions LLC [2024] QIC (F) 30 | Qatar Financial Centre Authority v ITECO LLC [2024] QIC (F) 31| Qatar Financial Centre Authority v Luay Darwish Holding LLC [2024] QIC (F) 32 | Qatar Financial Centre Authority v Ali Bin Yousef Holding LLC [2024] QIC (F) 33
In four similar cases the Qatar Financial Centre Authority (QFCA) obtained judgment against four entities that had failed – when required under rule 8A.9 of the QFCA Rules (the ‘Rules’) – to submit a report on their Beneficial Owners to the QFC Companies Registration Office. These are important obligations to ensure that the QFC can secure compliance with legislation concerning the combating of money laundering and the financing of terrorism. Having failed to file the reports as required, the QFCA issued each Defendant with a Decision Notice pursuant to rule 5.2.1 of Part 5 of the Rules imposing a financial penalty of $3,000. None of the Defendants challenged its Decision Notice before the QFC Regulatory Tribunal nor paid the penalty. The QFCA, thus, in each case, applied under rule 4.2.4 of Part 5 of the Rules for those penalties to be designated as recoverable debts and was successful in each.
Qatar Financial Centre Authority v Awan Media International LLC [2024] QIC (F) 34
In this case, the Qatar Financial Centre Authority (QFCA) obtained judgment against a company that had (i) failed to file a report on its Beneficial Owners to the QFC Companies Registration Office under rule 8A.9 of the QFCA Rules (the ‘Rules’), and (ii) failed to file tax returns pursuant to article 109(1) of the QFC Tax Regulations 2019 (the ‘Regulations’). The QFCA issued the Defendant a Decision Notice in respect of the failure to file a Beneficial Owners report imposing a penalty of $3,000, and applied under rule 4.2.4 of Part 5 of the Rules for that penalty to be designated as recoverable debt; the tax sanctions payable under the Regulations already constituted a debt under article 142(2) of the Regulations. The Claimant obtained judgment in respect of both the financial penalty and the debt.
Rudolfs Veiss v Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority [2024] QIC (A) 10
In this case, the Regulatory Tribunal upheld in part the decision of the QFCRA that the Appellant had contravened QFC regulations, in particular by conducting insurance mediation business during a prohibition period imposed by the QFCRA. It reduced the penalty imposed by the QFCRA from approximately $500,000 to $240,000 but upheld the prohibition upon the Appellant from carrying out any function in the QFC for a period of 5 years. The Appellant appealed against the decision that he had been in contravention of the regulations on the basis that the Regulatory Tribunal had erred on two points law on its interpretation of the material regulations. He also appealed against the financial penalty, the time given to pay and the suspension.
The Court (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, and Laurence Li SC) upheld the RT’s findings on the breach of the prohibition period and dismissed the appeal against the period of suspension. It ordered that should the Appellant pay the fine in instalments over the course of 5 years, it would be reduced to $125,000; if any instalment was missed the entire amount ordered by the RT would become immediately payable.
There was also a question as to the scope of the QFCRA’s (and therefore also the RT’s) power to make a prohibition which covers activities beyond regulated activities. The Court’s view was, in short, that the QFCRA is an agency within the QFC and has a role to promote and safeguard the QFC. Its natural focus is finance, but this does not mean that it is restricted to its area of main responsibility; on the contrary, it may at times reach beyond its area of focus. Article 62(3) of the Financial Services Regulations of the QFC notes that the QFCRA may prohibit a person from performing “… any function”. “Any function” refers to any function within the QFC. This is the plain meaning of the provision. The QFCRA and therefore the RT both have the power to make prohibition orders outside regulated activities.
Costs
Amberberg Limited and Prime Financial Solutions LLC v Thomas Fewtrell, Nigel Perera and Louise Kidd [2024] QIC (A) 4
In this case, an application for permission to appeal a costs judgment of the First Instance Circuit was unsuccessful (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE and Sir Bruce Robertson).
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 23
In this case, the Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al Marzouqi) set out the relevant principles in making the Court's first order for security for costs. The Claimant was to provide a security for costs in the amount of £144,000 to the second and third Defendants. The Court also highlighted that it has jurisdiction to order security for costs under its general case management powers, despite the Claimant’s objections.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 27
The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC and Dr Yongjian Zhang) had previously made an order against the Claimant for security for costs to be paid in tranches upon dates decided by the Registrar. Subsequently, but prior to the Registrar’s order, the Claimant indicated that it would not be able to make such payments. The Claimant applied for a stay of six months and the Defendants applied for strike out. Both applications were dismissed: the extension of time application because the Court was of the view that it was not clear that payments could be made in six months’ time, and the strike-out application because it was premature. The matter was remitted to the Registrar to order the payment tranches.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 39
The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC and Dr Yongjian Zhang) struck out claims against two Defendants due to the Claimant’s failure to comply with a security for costs order ([2024] QIC (F) 23).
(Lord Thomas of Cwmigedd, President, and Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE and Laurence Li SC) handed down a significant decision on appeal from the Regulatory Tribunal (RT; [2024] QIC (A) 10).
Amberberg Limited and Prime Financial Solutions LLC v Thomas Fewtrell, Nigel Perera and Louise Kidd [2024] QIC (F) 43
The Court (Justice Fritz Brand) refused Amberberg’s application to review a costs judgment by the Registrar. The Registrar’s discretion in determining costs was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the application.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 48
The Court (Justice Fritz Brand) denied Amberberg Limited's application for permission to appeal a costs judgment made by the Registrar. The Registrar had awarded QAR 8,500 to the Fifth Defendant, Remy Abboud, after determining reasonable costs for her defence. The Court found that Amberberg Limited failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success in the appeal, particularly regarding claims of improper conduct by the Defendant, which were deemed irrelevant to the costs assessment.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 49
In this case, the Court (Justice Fritz Brand) refused Amberberg Limited’s application for permission to appeal a costs judgment made by the Registrar. The Registrar awarded QAR 421,000 in costs to the Eighth Defendant, Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QPSC, after dismissing Amberberg's claims as "entirely without merit."
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 50
In this case, the Court (Justice Fritz Brand) refused Amberberg Limited’s application for permission to appeal a costs judgment made by the Registrar. The Registrar had awarded QAR 18,310 to the Sixth Defendant after determining reasonable legal costs. The Court found that Amberberg Limited failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success in the appeal.
Amberberg Limited and Prime Financial Solutions LLC v Thomas Fewtrell, Nigel Perera and Louise Kidd [2024] QIC (F) 54
In this case, the Court (Justice Fritz Brand) refused Amberberg Limited’s application for permission to appeal a costs judgment made by the Registrar in a case involving three Defendants. The Applicant (Amberberg) was subject to a Litigation Restraint Order, which requires prior permission to make claims or applications from a Nominated Judge. The application was found to be confusing and lacked merit. The Court found that the Registrar’s judgment was thorough and well-reasoned, further emphasising that the Registrar’s discretion was properly exercised.
Debt
HKA Global Limited v Al Jaber Engineering Company WLL [2024] QIC (F) 4
The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, George Arestis, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favour of the Claimant, ordering the Defendant to pay QAR 1,561,060.45 to the Claimant. The dispute arose from unpaid invoices under a contract for expert services in a construction project. The Defendant did not defend or oppose the claim. The Claimant’s additional claims for QAR 500,000 in damages were denied.
Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority v Jean-Marc Mantegani [2024] QIC (F) 7
Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority v Robert Sharratt [2024] QIC (F) 8
Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority v Patrick Baeriswyl [2024] QIC (F) 9
Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority v Luis Pablo De Laplana Moraes [2024] QIC (F) 10
The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang) granted summary judgment in favour of the Claimant in each of the 4 cases brought by the Qatar Financial Centre Authority in respect of debts.
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP v Gulf Beach Trading & Contracting WLL [2024] QIC (F) 13
The Claimant brought a claim against the Defendant for unpaid legal fees of QAR 191,809.65. The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand, and Helen Mountfield KC) ordered Gulf Beach, the Defendant, to pay QAR 111,809.65 plus interest. The Defendant failed to defend within the time limit and disputed the proper service of documents. The Court found the documents were validly served and rejected Gulf Beach's late responses, moving to Summary Judgment. The Court concluded the Defendant presented no valid defence and that, despite settlement negotiations, the Defendant did not pay the agreed amount.
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP v Petroserv Limited [2024] QIC (F) 18
The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP against Petroserv Limited. The Court ordered Petroserv to pay QAR 84,154.21, plus QAR 7,850.11 in interest and daily interest of QAR 21.46 until full payment. The Court also mandated Petroserv to cover the Claimant's legal costs. Based on undisputed claims, the judgment highlighted Petroserv’s failure to contest the charges or make payments despite acknowledging the debt and seeking discounts.
DWF LLP (Qatar Branch) v Roland Berger LLC [2024] QIC (F) 38
The Claimant brought a claim against a client/former client for unpaid legal fees arguing that it undertook significant work out-of-scope for which it should be compensated. Although the Court (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, Fritz Brand and Ali Malek KC) found that the firm did indeed undertake much out-of-scope work, there was no agreed basis for remuneration of this work and therefore the Claimant was only entitled to the fixed fee originally agreed.
International Law Chambers LLC v Anvin Infosystems WLL [2024] QIC (F) 44
In this case, the Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favor of the Claimant, ordering the Defendant to pay QAR 68,425 for unpaid legal fees. The Claimant provided legal services but received no payment despite demands. The Defendant did not engage in the proceedings, which resulted in a summary judgment.
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP v Gulf Beach Trading & Contracting WLL [2024] QIC (F) 55
The First Instance Circuit (Justices George Arestis, Ali Malek KC and Helen Mountfield KC) upheld the decision of the Registrar to award the successful Claimant QAR 143,000 in legal fees.
Employment
Xavier Roig Castello v Match Hospitality Consultants LLC [2024] QIC (C) 1
In this case, judgment initially having been issued in favour of the Defendant on a preliminary issue, the Claimant pursued a claim for unfair dismissal. Shortly before trial, the Claimant withdrew his claim. The Registrar awarded the Defendant QAR 744,550 by way of reasonable costs out of a total claimed of just over QAR 1m.
Klaas Bouwman v Kofler Group Middle East LLC [2024] QIC (A) 1
The Applicant sought permission for leave to appeal a judgment which awarded the Respondent, a former employee, unpaid entitlements. The application was brought on the basis that proceedings before the Appellate Division are re-hearings. The Court (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Sir Bruce Robertson and HH Frances Kirkham CBE) refused permission to appeal and awarded indemnity costs.
Waqar Zaman v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC and Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte [2024] QIC (F) 5
The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) addressed a special plea by the Second Defendant (Meinhard (Singapore) Pte), in which it challenged the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the plea and allowed the issue of jurisdiction to be revisited after full factual determination as the case proceeded to trial. The underlying case involved a claim for unpaid salary and other benefits.
Zahir Makawy v Al Awael Captive Insurance Company LLC [2024] QIC (F) 11
In this case, the Court (Justices Georges Arestis, Fritz Brand, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favour of the Claimant. The Claimant was employed by the Defendant and sought unpaid salaries leave salary, end-of-services benefits, compensation for termination, and differential salaries. The Court rejected claims for arbitrary termination and salary increases due to lack of evidence but upheld the claims for unpaid salaries and leave entitlements.
Reham Hosni El Tanany v Crown Accounting and Technology LLC [2024] QIC (F) 17
The Claimant brought a claim against Crown Accounting and Technology LLC for unpaid salary and benefits after her employment was terminated. The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Dr Hassan Al Sayed, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) ruled in her favor, ordering the defendant to pay QAR 20,682 in arrears and QAR 396.80 in compensation, continuing at QAR 2.83 per day until paid. The Court also dismissed her claim for moral damages but awarded costs. The Court found the Defendant's argument of poor performance unfounded, highlighting the lack of contractual provision for salary deductions on that basis
AARNOUT HENRI NICOLAES V QATAR FREE ZONES AUTHORITY [2024] QIC (A) 7
In this case, the Qatar Free Zones Authority (QFZA) appealed a decision that the Court had jurisdiction over a wrongful dismissal dispute with a former employee, Mr Wennekers. In the First instance the Court ruled in favor of Mr Wennekers, awarding him QAR 1,128,919 in damages. On appeal (Justices Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, Sir William Blair, and Georges Affaki), permission to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed on jurisdictional grounds.
Waqar Zaman v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC and Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte [2024] QIC (F) 25
The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) awarded the Claimant damages against his former employer for unpaid dues. The key question was whether a document that purported to be a wavier barred the claims. The majority held that the document did not constitute a waiver as it had yet to be consummated into a signed agreement. The dissenting judgment disagreed on this particular point for a number of reasons including whether – on a proper construction of the facts – it was possible to conclude that this was indeed the Claimant’s case.
Jilioni Cortbawi v Croatian Business Council LLC(G) [2024] QIC (F) 28
In an undefended employment claim, the Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Dr Yongjian Zhang) dismissed due to a dearth of core evidence as to the facts (e.g. the employment contract).
Syed Yawer Ali Sayed v Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte Limited and Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2024] QIC (F) 41
In this case, the Claimant successfully brought a claim against a former employer for arrears of remuneration.
QFC Employment Standards Office v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2024] QIC (F) 45
The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Helen Mountfield KC, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) for the first time considered whether, in the absence of a specific provision, the penalties that the Claimant imposes for breaches of the QFC Employment Regulations 2020 are enforceable as debts. The relevant provision is article 57(4) of the Regulations: “A person on whom the Employment Standards Office imposes a requirement under this Article shall comply with such requirement”. Other QFC Institutions, such as the QFC Authority and the QFC Regulatory Authority, have explicit provisions which allow them to recover penalties imposed for violations as debts by order of the Court (rule 4.2.4 of Part 5 of the QFC Authority Rules and article 59(4) of the QFC Financial Services Regulations 2023, respectively). The question for the Court, therefore, was: in the absence of such an equivalent provision, are financial penalties imposed by the Claimant enforceable as debts? The Court ruled in the affirmative, stating as follows in paragraph 8: “Since the times of classical Roman Law, it is recognised that “ubi ius ibi remedium”; that ‘where there is a right there must be a remedy.’ Conversely stated, that an unenforceable obligation amounts to no obligation at all. To say that non-payment of a penalty results in a debt between two parties subject to the jurisdiction of this Court must imply that such debt must be enforceable by order of this Court.”
Mohammad Amin Hamza v Masters Business Consultancy LLC [2024] QIC (F) 51
In this case, a claim was brought by a former employee of the defendant who sought a non-objection certificate (NOC) for transferring sponsorship to another company (non-QFC) and claimed damages. The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC, and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) dismissed the claimant’s claims and found that, under Qatar’s 2020 labour reforms, an NOC is not required for sponsorship transfers to non-QFC entities, and the former employer has no role in the process, making the claimant’s claims invalid.
Waqar Zaman v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC and Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte [2024] QIC (A) 12
The Court (Justices Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, Sir William Blair, Chelva Rajah SC) upheld the First Instance Circuit decision and dismissed the appeal regarding unpaid wages and benefits in the amount of QAR 612,000. The First Instance Circuit found that Mr Zaman (Appellee) did not waive his rights and affirmed that the waiver must be clear and unequivocal. The Court also highlighted the importance of the QFC Employment Regulations 2020 in protecting employees’ rights, which amongst other things, rendered the time bar defense inapplicable.
Sami Mahgoub Mohammed Moustafa v Sharq Insurance LLC [2024] QIC (F) 59
The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) awarded the Claimant QAR 12,011.24 for return tickets for him and his family, while dismissing all other claims. The Claimant claimed QAR 405,000 for additional work as Deputy MLRO and QAR 150,000 for moral compensation. The end of service settlement agreement was fatal in his case as it established that the Claimant had waived his rights. Th Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant costs for opposing the dismissed claims.
Donicka Louise Perez v Ginger Camel LLC [2024] QIC (F) 62
The Claimant was a former employee of the defendant company and was owed QAR 45,381 in unpaid wages. Because of the sum involved, this case was allocated to the Small Claims Track. The Defendant admitted the claim in full. The case was therefore decided on the papers without a hearing and the Court awarded the Claimant QAR 45,381 as well as reasonable costs.
Christian Friedrich Linhart v Ooredoo Group LLC [2024] QIC (F) 60
The Court awarded the Claimant, a former employee of the Defendant, QAR 1,015,376 plus interest and costs. The Claimant had held a senior position at the Defendant company but resigned after being told he would be replaced by a Qatari national as part of the company’s nationalisation policy. The Court found his resignation was effectively a constructive dismissal, entitling him to damages and benefits.
Insurance
Boom General Contractors WLL v Sharq Insurance LLC [2024] QIC (F) 29
In this case, the Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Dr Yongjian Zhang) struck out the claim under article 31 of the Regulations and Procedural Rules on the grounds that the Claimant had not provided critical disclosure to the Defendant as ordered by the Court. The Court set down the principles upon which such decisions are to be made.
Nasser Al-Ali Enterprises WLL v Gulf Insurance Group BSC [2024] QIC (F) 61
The Claimant successfully sought QAR 200,000 from the Defendant insurer following a worker's death in a traffic accident. Despite a prior settlement where the insurer paid the heirs of the deceased QAR 200,000, the Claimant pursued compensation under their insurance agreement. The Court ordered the insurer to pay QAR 200,000 to the claimant within 7 days, plus reasonable costs. The insurer’s defence, citing a settlement agreement and Civil Code provisions, was dismissed, emphasising the Claimant's direct right to compensation under the insurance contract.
Interim Relief
Thales QFZ LLC v AlJaber Engineering Company W.L.L. [2024] QIC (F) 53
This was a successful application by Thales QFZ LLC for an interim injunction against AlJaber Engineering over a subcontract dispute for the New Hamad Port Project. Thales accused AlJaber of non-payment and wrongful termination and sought to block a performance guarantee demand on grounds that it was made fraudulently. The Court (Justice Fritz Brand) found a prima facie case of fraud and ruled that Thales would face irreparable harm without the injunction.
Teknowledge Services and Solutions LLC v Fadi Saghir [2024] QIC (F) 58
In this case, the Court (Justice Fritz Brand sitting alone) granted an ex parte interim injunction in the context of a former employee of the Claimant who had allegedly breached restrictive covenants and other provisions in his contract of employment.
Procedure
Stephen Ferris v Sanguine Investment Managers LLC and Christopher John Leach [2024] QIC (E) 1
This case concerned various allegations of breaches of court orders and the provision of misleading information to the Court. The Applicant successfully applied for the Respondents to be held in contempt of court for those breaches and financial penalties were imposed.
This is a particularly significant case as it is the first in the Court’s history in which the Enforcement Judge has sat alone as part of our new procedures within the enforcement jurisdiction. We have therefore also created a new citation for such cases, including "(E)" to indicate that this has gone before the Enforcement Judge.
Sandy Beach Refreshments Cafeteria LLC v AHK Enterprise LLC [2024] QIC (F) 2
In this case, the First Instance Circuit (Justices Fritz Brand, George Arestis and Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favour of the Claimant on an application for summary judgment.
HKA Global Limited v Obayashi HBK JV and Conspel Qatar WLL [2024] QIC (F) 6
This was a case concerning parallel proceedings in the other national courts. The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Ali Malek KC) initially stayed the proceedings to allow litigation in the other national courts to take place. The Court of Cassation ruled that the matter fell within the jurisdiction of the other national courts. On this basis, the Court declined jurisdiction under article 9.4 of the Court’s Regulations and Procedural Rules.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 15
In this case, the Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) dismissed Amberberg Limited's claims against Remy Abboud and Marc Reaidi were dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 16
The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) dismissed Amberberg Limited’s claims against Qatar General Insurance & Reinsurance Company QPSC (the Eighth Defendant). The Court declared the claims and the request for document disclosure as entirely without merit and ordered Amberberg to pay the Eighth Defendant’s costs. The Court also found no prospect of Amberberg succeeding in its claims against the Eighth Defendant.
Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2024] QIC (F) 19
The Claimant, Rudolf Veis, sought in two separate cases to join International Business Development Group (IBDG) as a defendant, claiming IBDG was liable for indemnifying his losses based on a ‘letter of comfort.’ The Court (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, Fritz Brand, and Helen Mountfield KC) dismissed both applications, as they were both found to be wholly without merit. The Claimant was also ordered to pay costs.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 21
The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC, and Dr Yongjian Zhang) dismissed applications made against the 1st and 7th Defendant as wholly without merit. Amberberg, a British Virgin Islands company, claimed losses due to alleged regulatory breaches by the First Defendant and sought related documents from both defendants. The Court found no relevance in the requested professional indemnity insurance documents and deemed the existence of a "letter of comfort" highly improbable. Consequently, Amberberg was ordered to pay the application costs on an indemnity basis in favor of the Defendants.
RE PRACTICE DIRECTION NO. 1 OF 2024 (LITIGATION RESTRAINT ORDERS) IN THE MATTERS OF AMBERBERG LIMITED AND MR RUDOLFS VEISS [2024] QIC (F) 24
The Court (Justice Fritz Brand) made the first litigation restraint order under the provisions of Practice Direction No. 1 of 2024 based on multiple meritless application submitted by the Respondents. The order takes effect for 2 years and prohibits the Respondents from filing any fresh claims or application without permission from the President or a Nominated Judge.
Zahir Makawy v Al Awael Captive Insurance Company LLC [2024] QIC (A) 9
The Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE and Lord Hamilton) noted that where applications for permission to appeal were pursued without heed to proper procedure, the Court will dismiss these via a summary order.
Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Centre Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC, and Mohammed Al-Emadi [2024] QIC (F) 26
This was a case in which the Applicant applied for the removal of a liquidator pursuant to the QFC Insolvency Regulations 2005. The Court (Justices Sir William Blair, Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) – while dismissing the application – set out the relevant principles.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 35 | Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 36
The first applications were filed under Practice Direction No. 1 of 2024 (Litigation Restraint Orders) (the ‘PD’) for permission to serve applications on other parties. The PD provides for Litigation Restraint Orders to be made against legal persons and/or their associates, the effect of which is to require permission for any claim or application to be served – whether fresh or within an extant claim – of the President of the Court or a Nominated Judge. Both applications for permission were refused.
COMSEC Services and Communications Company WLL v Buse Denise Calli and Royal Empire Marble and Stones Trading QFZ LLC [2024] QIC (F) 37
The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Dr Yongjian Zhang) struck out the claims and the defence due to continued non-compliance with the Regulations and Procedural Rules (the ‘Rules’) and various court orders over a protracted period of time, despite significant assistance and clarification from the Registry. The power was exercised under articles 31.1.2 and 31.1.3 of the Rules, and the Court weighed up the effect of the Overriding Objective within article 4 of the Rules in accordance with the dicta in M v H [2021] QIC (F) 12. The Court decided that in all the circumstances no other sanction would have been appropriate.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 40
This was an application by a party subject to a Litigation Restraint Order to a Nominated Judge for permission to add another party to a claim that was originally initiated with eight defendants. The application was dismissed.
Boom General Contractors WLL v Sharq Insurance LLC [2024] QIC (A) 11
Boom General Contractors WLL (Appellant) sought permission to appeal a judgment by the First Instance Circuit [2024] QIC (F) 29 dismissing the Appellant’s claims against Sharq Insurance LLC for non-compliance with the Court procedural directions. The claim arose out of two fatal accidents to employees covered under a workman’s compensation policy. Due to the Appellants failure to comply with disclosures orders for vital documents, the First Instance Circuit struck out its claim. The Appellate Division (Justices Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi, and George Affaki) refused the application for permission to appeal.
Akram Hidri v Qatar Financial Centre Authority [2024] QIC (F) 46
The Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Ali Malek KC, and Helen Mountfield KC) considered article 16(1) of the QFC Law (Law No. 7 of 2005), which provides QFC Institutions with immunity from suit in relation to all acts or omissions or negligence in good faith during the course of its duties. The Claimants alleged gross negligence and bad faith. The Defendant applied for summary judgment. The Court noted that any negligence – even gross negligence – would be covered by the immunity. Bad faith required cogent evidence and should not otherwise be pleaded. Even taking the Claimants’ case at its highest, it did not come close to bad faith, which the Court interpreted in this context as an abuse of power actuated by malice, some ulterior purpose, or dishonesty. The Court dismissed the claims.
Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2024] QIC (F) 47
The Court (Justice Fritz Brand) granted the Applicant (Rudolfs Veiss) permission to proceed with his claim against the Defendant, which had been previously stayed. The Court found that the Application was not an abuse of process and had reasonable grounds for consideration, allowing the case to move forward following the resolution of the related appeal proceedings.
Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Centre Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC, and Mohammed Al-Emadi [2024] QIC (F) 52
This was a judgment giving directions for the future conduct of the proceedings between the parties, particularly concerning the validity of nine “Purported Trusts” and the priority of unsecured creditors. The Court (Justices Sir William Blair, Ali Malek KC, and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) will first decide whether the trusts are legitimate, with a focus on verifying the source of funds in compliance with anti-money laundering laws. Horizon’s liquidator also seeks guidance on whether liquidation expenses can be reimbursed from the trust funds. Unsecured creditor claims, including a potential preferential claim by Horizon’s former employee, will be addressed once trust issues are settled.
Amberberg Limited v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2024] QIC (F) 56
The President of the QFC Civil and Commercial Court - Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd - gave a judgment sitting alone as a Judge of the First Instance Circuit to dismiss an application by a party subject to a Litigation Restraint Order.
The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v The Holding WLL [2024] QIC (F) 57
The First Instance Circuit (Justices George Arestis, Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi and Dr Yongjian Zhang) declined jurisdiction in a case where the two parties were both non-QFC entities. The Claimant had sought to have the case heard under article 9.2 of the Court's Regulations and Procedural Rules.