Arbitration
L v M [2025] QIC (F) 67
The case concerned arbitration under the QFC Arbitration Regulations 2005 (as amended; the ‘QFC Regulations’). Both parties were non-QFC entities. The key question was, can the Court act as a Competent Court for a QFC-seated arbitration (governed by the QFC Regulations) where both parties are non-QFC entities? The answer to that question is “yes”. There is no bar to two non-QFC entities nominating the QFC Court as the Competent Court for arbitration seated in the QFC (governed by the QFC Regulations). Nothing in the judgment of the Appellate Division in The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v The Holding WLL [2025] QIC (A) 6 (the ‘Cambridge Case’) affects this conclusion, and indeed the Court in L v M derived support from the Cambridge Case for its conclusions. This ruling should be further clarity to business looking to solve their disputes by arbitration seated in the QFC.
D v E [2025] QIC (F) 60
The Court, having provided in a previous judgment that stipulated that if the parties failed to appoint an arbitrator ([2025] QIC (F) 49), the Court would do so, delegated that function to the Registrar in the absence of party agreement.
H v I [2025] QIC (F) 55
The Claimant had contracted with the Defendant as the latter’s lawyer in arbitration proceedings. The Engagement Letter noted that the fee would be 4% of the arbitration award if the Defendant was successful. Shortly before the arbitral award was issued, the Defendant dispensed with the services of the Claimant. The Claimant alleged that this was done to avoid paying the fees that it was owed. The Defendant did not respond to the Claim Form but objected by email that it was not able to access the material on the electronic case management system and also that it was not served properly. The Court noted that neither objection justified refusing the Claimant judgment in its favour: the Defendant had ample time to obtain the relevant information and did not seek an extension of time, and the matter was served on the party identified in the Engagement Letter. If the Defendant was of the view that the wrong party was served, it ought to have raised this in a Defence rather than ignore the claim. This was the first default judgment case for an unspecified sum of money under article 22.4 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures. The Court cited the certum est quod reddi potest principle, the effect of which is that once disclosure of the award is made the sum due to the Claimant will be certain and that sum would be awarded to the Claimant plus interest and costs.
C v D [2025] QIC (F) 44
The parties included an arbitration clause in their contract which read, in part: "Any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with this contract, including any question regarding its existence, validity or termination, shall be referred to and finally resolved by arbitration by QATAR INTERNATIONAL COURT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE ("QICDRC") in accordance with QATAR INTERNATIONAL COURT AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE ("QICDRC") rules in force at the time. The seat, or legal place, of the arbitration shall be Qatar." The Claimant had issued a claim for breach of contract and the Defendant challenged jurisdiction on the ground that the matter ought to be resolved via arbitration pursuant to the contract between them. The Court held, inter alia, that the matter was to go to arbitration, ruling as follows on the arbitration clause (at paragraph 14): "... the parties expressly agreed (i) that their dispute be resolved by arbitration, and (ii) that this Court should "administer" that arbitration: i other words, that it would be the Competent Court and have a supervisory role in respect of an arbitration (this interpretation also accords with that of this Court in D v E [2025] QIC (F) 38 at paragraphs 26-28). The fact that this Court is the Competent Court for any arbitration between these parties does not mean this Court has jurisdiction to determine the substantive dispute."
D v E [2025] QIC (F) 38
The parties had agreed to arbitration, and the operative clause of the agreement read as follows: "Any disputes ... should be determined by arbitration in Doha, Qatar ... administered by the Qatar International Court and Dispute Resolution Centre (QICDRC) pursuant to its rules". Claimant applied to the Court to appoint an arbitrator. D, inter alia, challenged the Court's jurisdiction, noting (1) the arbitration clause is not complete, (2) Claimant initially was not of the view that this Court had jurisdiction and communicated this to Defendant in writing (something Claimant said was an error), (3) Claimant filed litigation in another national court (the Claimant stated this was on a different issue). The Claimant had also filed a case before another national court to appoint an arbitrator, a claim which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Court noted:
- The proper construction and interpretation of an arbitration clause must give effect to the practical purpose it serves.
- Fine distinctions of text, semantics or legalism should be avoided if the words of commercial people are tolerably clear or bear a meaning which gives efficacy to their bargain.
- That where alternative interpretations are possible, the interpretation that sustains the parties' agreement to arbitrate is to be preferred.
- That “Arbitration in Doha, Qatar" would normally carry with it a conclusion as to the juridical seat. However, both Doha and Qatar have the QFC within them. As neither party is a QFC entity - and with the attendant potential consequences of that fact - the interpretation of the clause that is to be preferred is that the seat is Qatar (i.e. the operative law being Law No. 2 of 2017) rather than the QFC. The 2017 Law allows parties to choose this Court as the Competent Court.
- That arbitration "administered" by the QICDRC will be construed as the referring to the QICDRC as a Court - i.e. the QFC Court - to administer the arbitration until its Rules and Regulations as a Competent Court ("to administer" meaning in this context meaning to govern and supervise under its regulations and rules).
- This construction recognises the QICDRC as a Court rather than arbitration institution or authority.
D v E [2025] QIC (F) 49
The Court addressed a dispute between a Claimant and Defendant regarding the transfer of shares under a Share Purchase Agreement. The Court confirmed it had jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under clause 6.4 of the SPA. Contrary to the contentions of the Defendant, the Court found that the Claimant had not waived its right to arbitration despite initially seeking relief from the other national courts. The Court directed the parties to agree on a sole arbitrator within 21 days, failing which the Court would appoint one under Qatar Arbitration Law.
F v G [2025] QIC (F) 51
The Court was asked to make a disclosure order in stand-alone proceedings against a party incorporated and based abroad. The Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to make such an order absent a jurisdictional hook rooted in article 8(3)(c) of the QFC Law (Law No. 7 of 2005), namely one of the five gateways used by the QFC Court.
Banking
Company Law
RE HCW (In Liquidation) [2025] QIC (F) 47
Upon the QFCA’s application, the Court had ordered the winding up of the Company ([2024] QIC (F) 1). A Liquidator was appointed and confirmed by a Court Order dated 23 December 2023. The Liquidator subsequently identified two debt claims relating to the assets of the Company, a claim from a former company officer, and various trusts claims (six were eventually made). The questions for the Court were: (1) Whether the trust claims should be admitted in the liquidation, and if so, what priority ought they be given? (2) Can the Liquidator’s reasonable remuneration and expenses be paid out of the trust assets (based on the principle in Re Berkeley Applegate (Investment Consultants) Ltd (No. 2) [1989] Ch 32 (CA)? In a further judgment of the QFC Court in February 2025 ([2025] QIC (F) 14), the Court set out various documentary requirements that trust Claimants needed to satisfy in order for their claims to be admitted and considered, including fully disclosing the source of the relevant funds and providing satisfactory evidence of their legitimate origin, reflecting the Court’s obligation to uphold public policy against money laundering. The Court carefully reviewed the evidence provided by each trust Claimant (paras. 49-123), and came to the conclusion that only one satisfied the evidential criteria in its February 2025 judgment. As to the remuneration of the Liquidator, the Court concluded as follows:
1. Where an office holder has properly undertaken work necessary to preserve investigate or realise assets, carried out in good faith for the beneficiaries, and absent remuneration it would be unjust to require the office-holder to act, the Court has an equitable jurisdiction to permit the reasonable remuneration and expenses of that work to be met from the assets themselves.
2. This jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, and is designed to prevent unjust enrichment by requiring those asserting beneficial interests to make a fair contribution to the necessary costs of an office-holder.
3. Any allowance is limited to reasonable and proportionate costs which materially contributed to the identification, protection or realisation of the property.
4. An application should ordinarily be made at the outset, before material work is undertaken.
5. All persons with a potential interest in the property must be joined or given notice.
Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC and Yousif Al-Tawil [2025] QIC (F) 45
In a dispute in which the jurisdiction of the Court was raised, the Court was asked, inter alia, to find the existence of a tripartite contract between C, an individual, D2, a corporate body (QFC entity), and D1 an individual and director of the D2, to found a jurisdictional hook between the Claimant and D2. The Court (Justice Fritz Brand) ruled that the arrangement lacked "an essential element of triangular relationship where the parties acquire reciprocal rights and incur reciprocal obligations inter se", in that there was "no contractual nexus between the two Ds inter se" with separate contractual links being between the Claimant and D2 on the one hand, and the Claimant and the D1 on the other hand. This is the first direct statement on the requirements of a tripartite contract by the QFC Court.
Joey Chris Battja v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (F) 58
The Court dismissed the claim, which was made on the basis that the company with which the Claimant had contracted (a company based in Bahrain) was in fact controlled by the principal of the Defendant. The Court ruled that the case put forward by the Claimant did not comprise a recognised legal basis for bringing a claim against the Defendant.
Costs
Sami Mahgoub Mohammed Moustafa v Sharq Insurance LLC [2025] QIC (C) 9
This is an important judgment on indemnity costs. The underlying employment claim sought over QAR 500,000 but resulted in an award of just over QAR 12,000, the same sum previously offered in settlement ([2024] QIC (F) 59). An application for permission to appeal was dismissed as “without merit” ([2025] QIC (A) 8). The Defendant sought indemnity costs of around QAR 700,000, relying on the Claimant’s unreasonable rejection of the settlement offer when costs were approximately QAR 60,000, and on the conduct of the appeal, which involved serious unsubstantiated allegations. Applying Bank Audi LLC v Al Fardan Investment Company LLC [2023] QIC (C) 4, the Registrar held that indemnity costs were justified due to culpable and abusive conduct. At first instance, the Claimant’s rejection of a settlement offer representing about 2% of the claim (and matching the eventual award) was “completely unreasonable”, as was his failure to engage with the substantive defence that a valid settlement existed. Indemnity costs were also awarded on the appeal for significantly unreasonable conduct, including “outrageous and scurrilous accusations” that affronted the judicial process. The Registrar awarded the Defendant QAR 579,514 on the indemnity basis, the first such award made by the Registrar.
Claire Holloway vs MBG Corporate Services LLC [2025] QIC (C) 7
This was a costs assessment judgment by the Registrar following an earlier judgment in which the Claimant, a former employee of the Defendant, was unsuccessful in her claim against the company she sued. The earlier judgment ordered the Claimant to pay half the legal costs of the Defendant in defending the claim. After assessment, the Court awarded QAR 30,000 as reasonable costs to the Defendant.
Zia Ur Rehman v Forvis Mazars LLC [2025] QIC (C) 8
This was a costs judgment in which the Court ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant only QAR 210 (for translation costs). The Court rejected the Applicant's other cost claims due to insufficient documentation and proportionality concerns. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to its rules and practices, particularly in cost assessments.
Parley Parsons LLC v Structurel Facility Management Contracting W.L.L. [2025] QIC (C) 6
This is the Court’s costs assessment for the successful Claimant. On 4 June 2025, the Court had issued a judgment in which it awarded QAR 35,000 to the Claimant, plus interest and costs. In this latest judgment, the Court concluded that the Claimant is entitled to QAR 8,500 in costs as per their lawyers’ invoice. The judge applied the rules contained in Practice Direction No. 2 of 2024 on Costs and found that the fees charged by the Claimant’s lawyers were reasonable.
Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2025] QIC (F) 20
The Claimant sought permission to appeal against a costs decision of the Registrar. The Claimant needed permission to appeal because he is the subject of a Litigation Restraint Order which prevents him from making claims without the Court’s permission. The Claimant sought to appeal the Registrar's cost award of QAR 52,000 to International Business Development Group WLL (IBDG) following two unsuccessful applications to join IBDG as a co-Defendant. The Court reiterated the fact that the Registrar has a wide discretion in costs assessments which will only be interfered with by the Court if it can be shown that the discretion had been improperly exercised. The Court found no merit in the Claimant’s objections to the Registrar’s findings and held that the Registrar's decision was reasonable.
International Law Chambers LLC v Anvin Infosystems WLL [2025] QIC (C) 1
This was a costs judgment of the Registrar, following the Defendant’s unsuccessful application for permission to appeal the judgment that was issued against them in an earlier case ([2024] QIC (F) 44). When the Appellate Division dismissed the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal, it stated that the Defendant would have to pay the Claimant’s (respondent’s) costs incurred. Such costs would be assessed by the Registrar if the parties failed to agree the amount. The Registrar took the usual approach towards the assessment of costs and concluded that the Defendant must pay the Claimant QAR 2,250.
Boom General Contractors WLL v Sharq Insurance LLC [2025] QIC (C) 3
The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant QAR 157,000 in costs following a judgment on 22 July 2024 that struck out the Claimant's claims. The Appellate Division denied permission to appeal on 16 October 2024. The Defendant submitted a costs application, claiming QAR 233,518 for legal fees and preparation costs. The Court found the rates reasonable and allowed the full amount for counsel's fees, deeming the Defendant's incurred costs reasonable and proportionate.
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP v Gulf Beach Trading & Contracting WLL [2025] QIC (C) 2
The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant QAR 90,000 for costs related to various proceedings. Initially, the Claimant won a breach of contract claim for unpaid legal fees and was thereby awarded QAR 111,809.65 plus costs and interest. Subsequent review and enforcement proceedings upheld the cost awards and led to further claims. The Court assessed costs based on proportionality, conduct, settlement offers, and success in litigation. Despite the Defendant’s objections, the Claimant’s detailed submissions justified the costs claimed.
Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2025] QIC (C) 4
The Claimant was ordered to pay QAR 52,000 in costs to the Defendant. The Claimant had applied to add the International Business Development Group WLL as a Defendant in two separate cases, which were dismissed as wholly without merit. The Court consolidated the cases for assessment and concluded that the Claimant’s applications were speculative and lacked a factual basis. The Registrar evaluated costs based on proportionality, the conduct of the parties, and reasonable settlement efforts, ultimately rejecting the Claimant’s objections and affirming the Defendant's legal fees claim.
Waqar Zaman v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC and Meinhardt (Singapore) Pte [2025] QIC (C) 5
This was a costs judgment of the Registrar, who ordered the First Defendant to pay QAR 17,100 to the Claimant for reasonable costs incurred. The Claimant had earlier won QAR 612,000 plus costs for unpaid wages. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, affirming that the First Defendant must cover the Claimant’s costs. The Registrar thereafter assessed the costs and considered factors such as proportionality, conduct, and efforts to resolve the dispute.
Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2025] QIC (F) 8
This was a case in which the Claimant sought permission for summary judgment to recover costs from the Defendant which he had incurred in defending certain criminal and regulatory proceedings that had been brought against him by the Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority. The Claimant is subject to a Litigation Restraint Order, which meant he needed the Court’s permission to apply for summary judgment. The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant QAR 783,787.50 for his solicitors’ costs, and GBP 298,530.00 for the costs he had incurred in hiring barristers from London. The Court also awarded the Claimant the costs of bringing this summary judgment application.
International Law Chambers LLC v Anvin Infosystems WLL [2025] QIC (A) 3
This was a judgment of the Appellate Division. The appellant had appealed against the judgment of the First Instance Circuit, which had ordered the appellant to pay legal fees amounting to QAR 68,425 (plus interest and costs) that were owed to the respondent, a law firm (who was the Claimant at first instance). The appellant had missed the deadline for filing a defence at first instance, which meant that the claim was undefended. The Appellate Division refused to grant the appellant permission to appeal. It rejected the appellant’s arguments that the engagement letters signed with the respondent law firm were not legally binding and that the respondent provided unsatisfactory advice. The Court found the appellant’s claim that the letters lacked proper authorisation unconvincing and noted that the appellant failed to serve its defence in the required timeframe.
Debt
Parley Persons LLC v Structurel Facility Management Contracting WLL [2025] QIC (A) 10
Appellate Division dismissed D's application for permission to appeal. The D had not honoured an invoice owed to the C. The D refused to accept service of the properly served claim, and was also offered an extension of time to file a Defence but failed to do so. It applied for permission to appeal on a number of grounds. The Court noted that parties that know of the existence of proceedings but then without good reason do not engage with the First Instance Circuit cannot expect to be heard by the Appellate Division. The Court made it clear that it had ruled, repeatedly, that litigants must litigate their dispute before the First Instance Circuit by adducing the evidence and legal arguments upon which they rely. Furthermore, the D had noted in its application that it intended to address the issues more fully in later submissions on appeal, an approach wholly contrary to the proper procedure for bringing an appeal whereby parties must submit their full arguments etc from the start (this follows the dicta from Zahir Makawy v Al Awael Captive Insurance LLC [2024] QIC (A) 9 at paragraph 9). The other arguments raised by the D in its application also provided no basis upon which permission should be granted.
Rathmore Consulting LLC vs Gulf GRC & Trading Co W.L.L. [2025] QIC (F) 73
The Court issued a judgment of stay of proceedings after the parties settled their dispute out of court.
Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (F) 62
The Court issued a stay of proceedings in this matter, as the parties agreed to settle their dispute out of Court.
Shamsulislam Arzan Ali v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2025] QIC (F) 61
The Claimant sought to obtain a refund plus other ancillary payments from the Defendant, who was contracted to obtain an Entrepreneur Business Visa for Portugal. The Claimant’s case was that the Defendant did not perform the services properly and therefore he terminated the contract and was thus entitled to repayment. The Defendant denied that it did not perform the services and stated that the refusal of the visa was due to the Portuguese authorities for which the Defendant did not bear any responsibility. The Court found that the Defendant performed its obligations under the contract within a reasonable time as required by the QFC Contract Regulations. The Court also ruled that in terms of article 107 of the Regulations, the sum paid to (and retained by) the Defendant was not ‘grossly disproportionate’ in all the circumstances, and therefore could be retained in full.
Spine LLC v Lamaison Hotel LLC [2025] QIC (E) 1
The Court issued a clarificatory judgment in which it gave a precise sum that is owed in interest following its earlier judgment in which the Claimant had been successful. This had been a default judgment, as the Defendant had not filed a Defence in time.
Hend Ali Mohamed Ali Shokir v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (F) 48
This was a default judgment in favour of the Claimant after the Defendant failed to file a Defence on time. The Claimant is a former employee of the Defendant. The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant $1,633.35 for severance entitlement and unused leave balance.
Muhammad Nouman v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2025] QIC (E) 2
The Registrar issued a clarificatory judgment in which the Court set out a precise sum that is owed in interest following its earlier judgment in which the Claimant had been successful.
Alexander Walker v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (F) 50
This was a Default Judgment in favour of the Claimant after the Defendant failed to file a Defence. The Court ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant $38,825.00 for unpaid salary and severance.
Parley Parsons LLC v Structurel Facility Management Contracting W.L.L.[2025] QIC (F) 43
This was a clarificatory judgment following a judgment that was issued on 4 June 2025. The Court clarified that where interest is claimed, an exact figure is required by the Enforcement Court rather than a calculation submitted in a judgment that states, for example, “interest is awarded on the sum claimed at the rate of 5% per annum from X date to the date of actual payment”. Parties should, therefore, seek a specific figure prior to enforcement, and these can be provided in brief clarificatory judgments issued by the Court such as this one if an enforcement application takes place on a date later than the date of the judgment (as will be the case in the overwhelming majority of cases given the requirement that the appeal period must have expired prior to an application for enforcement being submitted).
Airdart Trading QFZ LLC v Excellent Food Trading WLL [2025] QIC (F) 42
This was a matter in which default judgment was issued, but which also provided some interpretation to article 22 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures on default judgment. Articles 22.3 and 22.4 stipulate that the Court “may” issue default judgment for a specified or unspecified sum, respectively. A v E granted default judgment in part, noting that in respect of another sum claimed there was insufficient evidence to support the figure sought by the Claimant, with the Court declining to award the other amount.
Thales QFZ LLC v AlJaber Engineering Company W.L.L. [2025] QIC (F) 34
This was a successful claim for the return of a performance bank guarantee and compensation amounting to QAR 8,385,718.31 for work that was completed by the Claimant for the Defendant, and damages. The Claimant is a company registered in the Qatar Free Zones and was hired by the Defendant as a sub-contractor to provide services relating to the establishment of a major project in the Hamad Port. The Court held that the contract between the parties was terminated. The Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed, and they were ordered to pay the Claimant for approved and unapproved works, damages for delay, loss of profits, and costs related to extending the performance guarantee. The judgment also contains an interesting analysis of the law pertaining to the termination of contracts, with references to the Qatari Civil Code and judicial precedent in the other national courts of Qatar.
Spine LLC v Lamaison Hotel LLC [2025] QIC (F) 36
This was a default judgment in which the Court awarded the Claimant QAR 231,919 plus interest and costs. The Defendant had failed to file a Defence. Article 22.2 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures provides that a Claimant may obtain default judgment by submitting a request to the Court where the claim is for a specified sum of money or an amount to be determined by the Court. The Court will then issue a default judgment which contains the names of the parties, the amount awarded, and confirmation that it was awarded due to the Defendant’s failure to file a Defence; the default judgment does not need to give any further reasons (article 22.5). The Court has a discretionary power to award interest and costs as part of the default judgment (article 22.3).
Analyzer LLC v Al Darwish Engineering WLL [2025] QIC (F) 37
This was a short judgment that was issued for the purpose of giving effect to an out-of-court settlement agreement that was reached between the parties to the dispute. The Court duly ordered that the proceedings be stayed for this reason.
Rutherford Bess and Attwood LLP v Qatar Financial Centre Authority [2025] QIC (RT) 1
This was a decision of the Regulatory Tribunal interpreting article 18 of the QFC LLP Regulations 2005 concerning whether LLP members may receive remuneration deductible under the QFC Tax Regulations 2005. The Tribunal confirmed that, under article 18, members are not entitled to remuneration for managing the LLP unless the LLP agreement expressly provides for it. The Respondent had found no such express provision in the LLP agreement and therefore disallowed the deduction of member salaries as expenses under articles 21(1)(a) and 48 of the Tax Regulations, though it permitted part of the amount to be treated as a distribution under article 65. The Tribunal agreed, holding that any exception to the prohibition on remuneration must be clearly stated in writing in the LLP agreement. As no such express clause existed, the Tribunal upheld the Respondent's decision to deny the tax deduction.
Affix Scaffolding WLL v Textec International Trading QFZ LLC [2025] QIC (F) 31
This was a default judgment in favour of the Claimant. The claim was for an unpaid contractual debt. The Defendant did not serve a Defence. The Claimant therefore asked the Court to issue a default judgment under article 22 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures. Article 22 states that default judgment shall include the names of the parties, the amount awarded (if applicable), and confirmation that it was issued due to the Defendant’s failure to file a Defence. No further reasons shall be stated in the judgment. The default judgment was thus issued accordingly.
Senatus Consulting LLC v Al Muntasser Contracting and Trading WLL [2025] QIC (F) 29
This was a default judgment in favour of the Claimant. The claim was for an unpaid contractual debt. The Defendant did not serve a Defence. The Claimant therefore asked the Court to issue a default judgment under article 22 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures. Article 22 states that default judgment shall include the names of the parties, the amount awarded (if applicable), and confirmation that it was issued due to the Defendant’s failure to file a Defence. No further reasons shall be stated in the judgment. The default judgment was thus issued accordingly.
Parley Parsons LLC v Structurel Facility Management Contracting W.L.L. [2025] QIC (F) 26
This was an undefended claim for QAR 35,000 in unpaid debt which the Claimant was owed for performing services under a contract. The Court awarded the Claimant QAR 35,000 plus interest and costs.
Gulf Insurance Group (Gulf) B.S.C. (C) v AlJaber Engineering W.L.L. [2025] QIC (F) 28
This was a default judgment of Justice Fritz Brand in respect of an undefended claim. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant QAR 4,634,423 for unpaid insurance premiums and cover reasonable costs incurred by the Claimant. The Defendant failed to file a Defence within the required period, leading to a default judgment. The Claimant's additional claim for QAR 800,000 in damages was dismissed due to insufficient substantiation. The judgment makes reference to article 22.5 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures, which states: “The default judgment shall include the names of the parties, the amount awarded (if applicable), and confirmation that it was issued due to the Defendant’s failure to file a Defence. No further reasons shall be stated in the judgment”.
Zishan Anwar v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2025] QIC (A) 9
This was a successful appeal brought by the Defendant in the proceedings. The case involved a dispute over a QAR 35,000 deposit paid by Anwar for visa services, with the First Instance Circuit previously ruling that Devisers should refund QAR 20,000. The Appellate Division found that the First Instance Circuit had erred by considering an offer made by Devisers during settlement discussions, and that the retention of QAR 35,000 was not grossly excessive under QFC Contract Regulations 2005. This judgment is important for understanding how the Court treats the confidentiality of statements, admissions and offers made during negotiations for the settlement of disputes. The Appellate Division’s careful analysis incorporates references to case law in Qatar, Dubai, England & Wales, the UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, as well as academic authorities.
Thales QFZ LLC v AlJaber Engineering Company W.L.L. [2025] QIC (F) 24
This was a judgment in which the Court explained its reasons for having granted payment on account of costs to the Claimant. The Defendant was ordered to make an interim payment on account of the Claimant’s costs in the sum of QAR 212,508.60, representing the minimum costs incurred as a direct result of the adjourned hearings of 11 February 2025 and 27 April 2025. The proceedings relate to a contractual dispute brought by the Claimant, who was a sub-contractor of the Defendant, concerning the latter’s alleged failure to make payments for work done under the sub-contract.
Mamoun Ahmad Abdulwahab v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2025] QIC (F) 17
This was a claim for breach of contract brought by an individual against a company he had hired to provide services that were aimed at helping him to secure a certain type of visa to the United Kingdom. The Claimant sought a refund of the $10,000 he had paid, compensation for lost opportunities, and additional damages. Whilst the Claimant did not convince the Court of the merits of all of his claims, the Court analysed his claims in detail and found that he was entitled to a sum of $5,000, which it ordered the Defendant to pay within 14 days, with no additional order for costs.
Ali Al Maadeed vs Nexus Financial Services WLL [2025] QIC (F) 16
This was a case brought by an individual investor against a financial advisory company which he claimed was in breach of contract. The Claimant sought a refund of $600,000 invested through Nexus, $350,000 in interest, $400,000 in unpaid returns, and $10,000,000 in damages. The court found that the Claimant had invested based on advice from Nexus but later transferred his business to another broker. The lack of direct evidence and the procedural complexities led to the dismissal of the claims, with the Claimant ordered to pay Nexus's legal costs. The facts of this case are similar to those of the case of Ibrahim Al Nasr v Nexus Financial Services WLL [2025] QIC (F) 15.
Ibrahim Al Nasr vs Nexus Financial Services WLL [2025] QIC (F) 15
This was a case brought by an individual investor against a financial advisory company which he claimed was in breach of contract. The Claimant sought refunds and compensation for investments made through the Defendant. The court dismissed the claims and directed the Claimant to pay the Defendant's reasonable legal costs. The investment issues and circumstances mirrored those in a related case, Ali Al-Maadeed v Nexus Financial Services WLL [2025] QIC (F) 16. Both Claimants made investments under similar conditions and received similar advice from the Defendant's representative. The court found insufficient direct evidence from the Claimants, leading to their claims' dismissal.
Fayza Ibrahim Abdullatif v Reliable News Network Worldwide LLC [2025] QIC (F) 7
This was a claim brought by a former employee of the Defendant for unpaid wages. The dispute arose from a Settlement Agreement after the termination of the Claimant’s employment. The Court found that the Defendant breached the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which required payment by 5 December 2024. The Court awarded the Claimant $1,000 plus interest at 5% per annum from 5 December 2024 until payment. The Court also awarded the Claimant reasonable costs incurred in pursuing the claim.
W Doha Hotel and Residences v Knowledge LLC [2025] QIC (F) 2
This was a Small Claims case in which the Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant QAR 99,103.70 plus reasonable costs. The case involved a Long Stay Agreement between the Claimant (a hotel company) and an individual who was authorised by the Defendant company. The individual vacated the apartment prematurely, leaving unpaid rent and service charges. The Defendant failed to contest the claim, leading the Court to rule based on the Claimant's unchallenged facts. The judgment was determined on written submissions without a hearing.
Zishan Anwar v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2025] QIC (F) 1
This was a successful claim brought against the Defendant, who was ordered to pay the Claimant QAR 20,000 within seven days of the judgment. The claim involved a failed UK Innovator Visa application for the Claimant’s wife, for which he paid QAR 35,000. The Defendant denied liability and counterclaimed for damages, which the court dismissed. The claim was decided based on written submissions, and no oral hearing was held.
Devisers Advisory Services LLC v Farwin Farook Muhammed [2025] QIC (A) 2
This was a decision of the Appellate Division, which dismissed the Applicant’s application for permission to appeal against a First Instance Circuit judgment. The Applicant had sought to retain QAR 37,500 for visa services but was ordered to repay QAR 32,500 to the Respondent. The Court found that the retention sum was grossly excessive under article 107 of QFC Regulations, reducing it to QAR 5,000. The Applicant’s attempt to introduce new evidence on appeal was rejected. The Court concluded there were no substantial grounds for appeal and no significant risk of serious injustice.
Employment
Giulio Mendes Marcucci v Sheffield Energy LLC [2025] QIC (F) 72
The Court dismissed claims for constructive dismissal and breaches of employment regulations brought by the Claimant against the Defendant, a QFC-registered company. The Claimant did succeed in his claim for underpayment of accrued holiday pay, with the Court ordering the Defendant to pay him for 13.5 days of accrued holiday pay within 14 days. No order for costs was made. The case centered on the Claimant’s performance and reassignment during a probationary period for a Regional Manager role.
Melis Arsouzi v ProMan LLC [2025] QIC (F) 52
The Claimant was unsuccessful in her claim against her former employer for unfair dismissal. The claim was dismissed entirely. The Court found that the Defendant had terminated the Claimant’s employment contract lawfully in accordance with the QFC Employment Regulations and the terms of the employment contract.
Sami Mahgoub Mohammed Moustafa v Sharq Insurance LLC [2025] QIC (A) 8
This was a judgment of the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Justice Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, and Justice Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi). The Court set out the approach on permission to appeal for clarity in dismissing the application for permission. The Court said, at paragraph 5, that “in the recent decisions in The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge [2025] QIC (A) 6 and Zia Ur Rahman v Forvis Mazars LLC [2025] QIC (A) 7, the Court explained its procedure when an appeal was lodged. It made clear it carefully considers and scrutinises the grounds of appeal against a wide range of factors in reaching a determination whether an appeal has merit, so that it should proceed further”.
Zia Ur Rehman v Forvis Mazars LLC [2025] QIC (A) 7
This was the Appellate Division’s refusal to grant Mazars permission to appeal. Mazars sought damages from Mr Zia Ur Rehman, alleging breach of a non-compete clause in his employment contract after he founded his own company and solicited Mazars' client, Al Meera. The First Instance Circuit dismissed Mazars' claim, noting the lack of evidence of any loss suffered by Mazars and the question of the clause's reasonableness was deemed academic. Mazars argued that the mere breach entitled them to compensation.
Teknowledge Services and Solutions LLC v Fadi Saghir [2025] QIC (F) 23
This was a case brought by a company against its former employee, whom it accused of having stolen their data when he left the company to join another, in breach of a non-compete clause in his employment contract. The Court ordered the Defendant to adhere to the non-compete and non-solicit obligations outlined in his employment agreement with the Claimant until December 11, 2025. Additionally, the Defendant must refrain from disclosing proprietary data and information, return all company property, and cover the legal costs incurred by the Claimant. This judgment is useful for understanding the criteria for the Court granting a final injunction.
Umraz Mubeen v Allied Enterprises LLC [2025] QIC (F) 21
The Claimant accused the Defendant of wrongful termination. The Court ruled in favour of the Claimant, finding that the termination of her employment was unlawful due to the lack of proper disciplinary procedure. Consequently, the Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant QAR 8,758, covering her salary for the notice period, 19 days of unpaid salary, and end-of-service benefits. The Court also ruled that the Claimant, who had taken two company laptops with her when she returned to her home country, must return the laptops to the Defendant.
Claire Holloway v MBG Corporate Services LLC [2025] QIC (F) 19
This was a case brought by an individual against her former employer. The claims were for salary arrears, unused leave, allegedly unlawful deductions from salary, and emotional damages, among other matters. The court dismissed the majority of her claims but found that the employer had in fact made some unauthorised deductions from her salary. It ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant QAR 6,586, but directed the Claimant to cover 50% of the Defendant's reasonable legal costs. The court found the deductions made by the Defendant were unauthorised, as it found that the Employee Handbook (which the Defendant had cited as support for the deductions) was not incorporated into her employment contract.
Nabila Kesraoui v MBG Corporate Services LLC [2025] QIC (F) 18
This was a case brought by an individual against her former employer for unpaid salary, leave, medical expenses, and damages following her termination. The Court rejected the majority of what the Claimant had sought. The Court acknowledged that her salary and leave claims were partially settled but found the deductions for disciplinary measures unauthorised. MBG’s failure to provide medical insurance also justified reimbursement of medical expenses. However, the claims for emotional and defamation damages were not substantiated under QFC law and therefore failed.
Mohamed Noweihi Wangsa v Ginger Camel LLC [2025] QIC (F) 11
This was a case brought by a former employee of the Defendant for unpaid wages. The Claimant had previously initiated legal proceedings against the Defendant, but those proceedings ended with a Compromise Agreement, under which the Defendant had agreed to pay a certain amount according to a particular timetable. When the Defendant failed to pay according to the Compromise Agreement, the Claimant filed a new claim in Court against the Defendant. The Court found in favour of the Claimant and ordered the Defendant to pay QAR 107,024 plus daily interest of QAR 14.66 until payment.
Akhil Balakrishnan Tharippayil v Ginger Camel LLC [2025] QIC (F) 13
This was a case brought by a former employee of the Defendant for unpaid wages. The Claimant had previously initiated legal proceedings against the Defendant, but those proceedings ended with a Compromise Agreement, under which the Defendant had agreed to pay a certain amount according to a particular timetable. When the Defendant failed to pay according to the Compromise Agreement, the Claimant filed a new claim in Court against the Defendant. The Court found in favour of the Claimant and ordered the Defendant to pay QAR 70,850 plus daily interest of QAR 9.71 until payment. The court emphasised that operational difficulties of the Defendant company did not affect the Claimant's entitlement to payment.
Tasneem Alkhatib v Ginger Camel LLC [2025] QIC (F) 12
This was a case brought by a former employee of the Defendant for unpaid wages. The Claimant had previously initiated legal proceedings against the Defendant, but those proceedings ended with a Compromise Agreement, under which the Defendant had agreed to pay a certain amount according to a particular timetable. When the Defendant failed to pay according to the Compromise Agreement, the Claimant filed a new claim in Court against the Defendant. The Court found in favour of the Claimant and ordered the Defendant to pay QAR 37,397 plus 5% interest per day until payment.
Zia Ur Rehman v Forvis Mazars LLC [2025] QIC (F) 9
This was a case brought by a former employee of the Defendant and involved several issues. The Claimant had worked as an auditor at the Defendant company. The Court dismissed the Defendant’s challenge to its jurisdiction, invalidated a provision in the employment contract that conflicted with QFC Employment Regulations, and dismissed the Defendant’s counterclaim for damages. The Court also ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s reasonable legal costs. The dispute centred on a non-compete clause in the Claimant’s employment contract, which the Defendant alleged the Claimant had violated, leading to significant financial losses.
Muhammad Nouman v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2025] QIC (F) 5
This was a successful claim brought by a former employee of the Defendant for unpaid wages. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant QAR 20,790.91 plus 5% annual interest from 15 October 2023, until payment is made. Despite being served with the claim, the Defendant did not respond. The Claimant, representing himself, successfully claimed the unpaid amount after previous payments left a balance. The Defendant must also cover reasonable costs incurred by the Claimant in pursuing the claim.
Amin Ullah Fazal Gul v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2025] QIC (F) 6
This was a successful claim brought by a former employee of the Defendant for unpaid wages. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant QAR 10,000 plus 5% annual interest from 30 October 2023 until payment is made. Despite being served with the claim, the Defendant did not respond. The Claimant, representing himself, successfully claimed the unpaid amount after previous payments left a balance. The Defendant must also cover reasonable costs incurred by the Claimant in pursuing the claim.
Insurance
Azmot Ali and another v Gulf Insurance Group (Gulf) B.S.C. (C) [2025] QIC (F) 63
This was a case brought against an insurance company for compensation in relation to an accident which occurred in 2019. The Court dismissed the Claimants' case due to the claim being time-barred under the statute of limitations.
Mohammed Afzal Hossain v Gulf Insurance Group (Gulf) B.S.C. (C) [2025] QIC (F) 56
This was a case in which the Claimant suffered injuries in a road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the driver of another vehicle. The Defendant was the insurer of that other vehicle. The Claimant sought damages in the sum of QAR 4,000,000 for injuries, compensation for loss of earnings, and for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. In 2023, the Claimant had brought a case arising out of the same cause of action against the same Defendant, a claim that was settled for a sum of money in “full and final settlement”. The Registry sought a submission from the Claimant on the effect of the settlement agreement: the Claimant submitted that damage had occurred after the settlement agreement had been executed. The Registrar referred the matter to the First Instance Circuit prior to requiring the Defendant to file and serve a Defence. The Court struck out the claim, holding that the settlement agreement had the same effect as res judicata, and as expressed, it precluded the claim. The Court also noted the South African law rule of “once and for all” which requires Claimants to bring all their claims arising out of a particular cause of action at the same time.
Gulf Insurance Group (Gulf) B.S.C.(C) v AlJaber Engineering W.L.L. [2025] QIC (F) 33
This was a ruling on the Defendant’s application to set aside a default judgment that had been issued against it on 29 June 2025. The Court refused to set aside the default judgment. The Applicant argued they did not receive the Claim Form and asserted a procedural right to defend the claim. However, the Court confirmed valid service of the Claim Form and found no disclosed Defence with a real prospect of success. The Court found there was no compelling reason to set aside the judgment. The application was therefore refused.
Interim Relief
J v K [2025] QIC (F) 65
This judgment sets out the reasons why the Court granted an interim injunction against a QFC-registered holding company. The application for the interim injunction was brought by a German bank which is in liquidation. The bank had won awards totaling over EUR 250 million against subsidiaries of a Russian company but faced enforcement challenges. The bank alleged that the QFC holding company’s shares were transferred to another entity to evade enforcement. The court granted the injunction to prevent asset dissipation. The bank needed to show a prima facie case, potential irreparable harm, and balance of convenience to obtain the injunction, which it successfully did.
Teknowledge Services and Solutions LLC v Fadi Saghir [2025] QIC (F) 3
This was a successful application brought by the Applicant for an interim injunction against the Respondent, their former employee. The Applicant accused the Respondent of downloading and deleting confidential information and joining a competitor company, potentially breaching non-competition clauses in his employment contract with the Applicant. The Court considered that the actions of the Respondent justified the granting of the interim injunction to prevent him from retaining or sharing confidential information. The Court clarified that the injunction does not prevent the Respondent from working for the competitor company, but restricts activities competing directly with the Applicant.
Procedure
Jonathan David Sheppard v Jillion LLC [2025] QIC (E) 3
A lawyer was found in contempt of court for submitting AI-generated fictitious authorities. This was a landmark judgment from Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the President of the Court. A lawyer had cited ‘fake cases’ during the course of litigation, apparently as a result of using AI to generate responses to the Court. He was therefore referred to the President by the Registrar to consider whether action ought to be taken. The President found that the lawyer in question was in contempt of Court, having regard among other things to article 35 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures. The judgment reviewed pertinent authorities relating to the citation of ‘fake cases’ from the SDNY, England and Wales, Canada, and Australia. The judgment concluded that, in this case, the lawyer’s apology and the publication of the judgment were sufficient penalty to deter future conduct.
Patricia Jaecklein v SDI Sports LLC [2025] QIC (F) 53
This is a judgment on disclosure in the context of an employment dispute. Some of the issues concern the scope of US and Canadian immigration law and their impact on the employment of the Claimant. The Court permitted the Defendant to adduce expert evidence on these areas of law to determine some of the matters in issue, and this also comprises a rare judgment on disclosure which is normally simply dealt with via a Redfern Schedule upon which the Judge rules without reasons.
Abdulrahman Al-Rayyan v Tricion Doha QFC Branch [2025] QIC (F) 71
The Court dismissed an application for disclosure filed by the Defendant against the Claimant. The Claimant claims unpaid salary from the Defendant, alleging he was employed as Executive Vice-President under an employment agreement. The Defendant disputes the existence of a genuine employment contract, stating the agreement was solely for personal administrative purposes. The Court refused the disclosure requests, deeming the documents unnecessary for resolving the dispute and emphasising that allegations of fraud must be supported by evidence. The trial is set for 25 January 2026.
Kahkshan Shoukat v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2025] QIC (F) 57
The Court allowed an application from the original Claimant to substitute the name on the Claim Form with that of his wife following a jurisdictional challenge from the Defendant. There was no dispute as to the transaction in question between the parties and it was an oversight from an unrepresented litigant-in-person that had caused the error. There was no prejudice to the Defendant. The Court refused the Defendant’s application for the case to be dismissed which would compel the commencement of another claim: this would have been a wasteful exercise of time and money and would have resulted in the case simply being run again in the same fashion.
Spine LLC v Lamaison Hotel LLC [2025] QIC (F) 46
This was an application to set aside default judgment under article 22.8 of the Rules. It was common ground that the claim was properly served on the Defendant. The Defendant submitted that it did not respond to the claim due to "genuine internal communication and authorisation failures". It further submitted that it had good and compelling grounds for set aside on the merits of the case. The Court ruled that the D's core submissions on the merits - particularly that the individual who signed the contract in the first instance did not have authority to do so - raised more questions: e.g. how was that individual able to do so, and have possession of the company stamp (see Aegis Services LLC v Doha Insulation Trading and Contracting Services LLC [2023] QIC (A) 3)? How, notwithstanding this, was the contract allowed to run? Why was this defence not raised when payment demands were issued? No real prospect of a success defence was made out and therefore the application was refused.
Mohamed Mubarak Al-Hitmi v Charles Cross - London LLC and another [2025] QIC (F) 70
This is an interim judgment pertaining to a dispute involving an individual who has brought a claim against a QFC-registered company for breach of five contracts related to the construction and fitting out of a villa in Doha. The Defendants argue the Court lacks jurisdiction due to an arbitration clause in the contracts. The Claimant counters this by asserting fraud and deceit, claiming the contracts should be rescinded. The judgment discusses the principles of separability and competence concerning the arbitration clause. The parties must submit further materials as directed within 28 days.
Cheikh Tidiane Niang v Clement Sports QFC LLC [2025] QIC (F) 69
In this judgment, the Court set aside a default judgment which had been granted to the Claimant. The Court granted the application, allowing the Defendant to file a Defence by 28 December 2025. The Defendant argued it had a strong Defence against the claim, citing misconduct by the Claimant. The Court found the Defendant had a real prospect of success and deferred the decision on costs until after hearing the evidence.
Cheikh Tidiane Niang v Clement Sports QFC LLC [2025] QIC (F) 59
The Court issued a default judgment under article 22 of the Court’s Rules and Procedures in favour of the Claimant in this employment dispute, as the Defendant failed to file a Defence in time.
Kashif Kamal Raja v Patron Network LLC [2025] QIC (F) 41
The Court ordered the stay of all further proceedings following a settlement agreement executed on 31 August 2025. Both parties, who were self-represented, agreed to the terms of the settlement, and they have permission to apply for further actions to enforce the settlement. A signed copy of the judgment is filed with the Registry.
Marc Reaidi v Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP [2025] QIC (F) 40
The Court ordered the stay of all further proceedings following a settlement agreement executed between the parties. Both parties agreed to the terms of the settlement, and they have permission to apply for further actions to enforce the settlement. A signed copy of the judgment is filed with the Registry.
Marc Reaidi v Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP [2025] QIC (F) 32
This was a ruling on the Defendant’s challenge to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. The claim concerns alleged breaches of the QFC Data Protection Regulations by the Defendant, who had published an article which named the Claimant. The Claimant argued this damaged this reputation. The Court acknowledged the Claimant's right to claim jurisdiction based on article 8.3(c)(1) of the QFC Law. The Defendant's jurisdiction challenge was refused, and the Court allowed the Claimant to proceed with his claim. Costs were reserved for future determination.
Amberberg Limited vs Prime Financial Solutions LLC and others [2025] QIC (F) 25
This was a decision of Justice Fritz Brand to allow the Claimant’s application to discontinue proceedings against two Defendants, Souad Ghazi and International Business Development Group WLL, without costs. The judge allowed a claim against the remaining Defendant who had not sought to defend the claim. The judgment makes clear that, even where a claim is undefended at trial (as in this case), the Court will still scrutinise to ensure that a proper claim is made out.
Sheryar Hussain Hussaini v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2025] QIC (F) 27
This was a judgment of the First Instance Circuit in which the Court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge made by the Defendant. The challenge was based on the argument that the Claimant had already initiated proceedings in the Qatari Labour Court. The Court ruled that the Qatari Labour Court lacks jurisdiction under the QFC Employment Regulations, and therefore the challenge could not be sustained. The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant’s reasonable costs for opposing the jurisdictional challenge.
Thales QFZ LLC v AlJaber Engineering Company W.L.L. [2025] QIC (F) 22
This was a short judgment containing the reasons why the Court adjourned the trial which had commenced on 27 April 2025. On the day preceding the trial, the Defendant applied to adjourn the hearing on the ground that its sole witness had been taken into police custody for reasons unknown to the Defendant. The Registrar refused the application, but indicated that the Defendant could renew the application before the Court at the hearing, which they did. The Court stated, among its reasons for granting the adjournment, that the Defendant would be prejudiced by the fact that their sole witness would not be able to attend the trial to give evidence.
The Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars of the University of Cambridge v The Holding WLL [2025] QIC (A) 6
This was a landmark judgment of the Appellate Division concerning the Court’s jurisdiction and, in particular, on the question of whether two entities, who are not connected to the Qatar Financial Centre, can opt into the jurisdiction of the QFC Court in their contract. The Court ruled that they cannot. The Appellate Division upheld the decision of the First Instance Circuit in refusing to accept jurisdiction in the parties’ dispute. This judgment confirms that (i) the QFC Court does not have any opt-in jurisdiction for litigation (other than as a ‘Competent Court’ under the Arbitration Law of 2017); (ii) the jurisdiction of the Court is as set out in article 8 of the QFC Law (No. 7 of 2005 as amended); and (iii) any expansion or modification of the QFC Court’s jurisdiction must come from primary legislation.
Thales QFZ LLC v AlJaber Engineering Company W.L.L. [2025] QIC (F) 10
The Court gave its reasons for adjourning the trial after the Defendant’s lawyers did not attend Court on the day of the trial. The Defendant’s lawyers had asked for an adjournment two days before the scheduled trial, citing the fact that the date of the trial would be National Sports Day, which is a public holiday in Qatar. The request was refused, it being the case that the judges were flown into Qatar specifically for this trial and the request was made at short notice. The lawyers nonetheless did not appear in court when the trial commenced and the Claimant’s lawyers duly presented their case. The Court reiterated that it is under a continuing duty to ensure that the proceedings are dealt with justly. The Court is bound to follow the Overriding Objective under the Qatar Financial Centre Civil and Commercial Court Regulations and Procedural Rules. The trial was therefore adjourned so that the Defendant may have their case heard.
Qatar Financial Centre Regulatory Authority and Qatar Financial Center Authority v Horizon Crescent Wealth LLC, and Mohammed Al-Emadi [2025] QIC (A) 4
This was a judgment of the Appellate Division, which adjourned applications for permission to appeal a judgment and order concerning the use of funds claimed to be trust property for liquidation expenses. The Court emphasised that the First Instance Circuit must first hear arguments and make determinations on the liquidator's entitlement to use these funds and the applicability of the Berkeley Applegate principle. Applications related to interim use of funds should also be directed to the First Instance Circuit. All other appeal applications were dismissed.
COMSEC Services and Communications Company WLL v Buse Denise Calli and Royal Empire Marble and Stones Trading QFZ LLC [2025] QIC (A) 1
This was a judgment of the Court’s Appellate Division, which refused to grant the Claimant permission to appeal against the judgment of the First Instance Circuit, which had struck out their claim against the Defendant for monies said to be due under a contract for services. Both the claim and the defence had been struck out due to the parties’ failure to comply with the Court’s Regulations and Procedural Rules. The Appellate Division emphasised the importance of adherence to procedural rules and the court's discretion under article 31.
Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2025] QIC (F) 4
This was a decision in which the Applicant was granted permission to proceed with an application for summary judgment against the Respondent. The Applicant, who is subject to a Litigation Restraint Order, sought indemnity from the Respondent for costs incurred in regulatory proceedings where he was found lacking integrity but not fraud or dishonesty. The Court found the Appellant had reasonable prospects of success and allowed the application to proceed. The costs of the application will be determined in future proceedings.
