Cases Filed Before the Court - 2023

Arbitration

A v B [2023] QFC (F) 16

A v B [2023] QFC (F) 16 was an application for the Court (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) to appoint an arbitrator under Law No. 2 of 2017 issuing the Law of Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters. Neither party was registered within the Qatar Financial Centre. A applied on the basis of a discrepancy between the official Arabic version of the law and the unofficial English translation: A submitted that the Arabic version suggested that neither the Court of Appeal of the State of Qatar nor the Civil and Commercial Court of the Qatar Financial Centre was the default Competent Court, and that therefore parties could select either court to act as the Competent Court. The Court ruled that in order for it to have jurisdiction, the agreement required specific mention of the QFC Civil and Commercial Court, rather than simply the "Courts of the State of Qatar". In the circumstances, the Court declined jurisdiction."

Breach of Contract

Aegis Services LLC v Al Qamra Facilities Management LLC [2023] QIC (F) 2

In Aegis Services LLC v Al Qamra Facilities Management LLC [2023] QIC (F) 2, the Court (Justices Sir Bruce Robertson, Dr Rashid Al-Anezi and Fritz Brand) heard a breach of contract claim in which the Defendant raised a jurisdictional issue as a preliminary point (reported at [2022] QIC (F) 29). This was a contested case on the Small Claims Track of the First Instance Circuit, and was disposed of with speed and efficiency, keeping costs to both parties to a minimum.

Devisers Advisory Services LLC v Muhammad Zahid [2023] QIC (F) 6

In Devisers Advisory Services LLC v Muhammad Zahid [2023] QIC (F) 6, in the context of a contract for services, the Claimant sought an order compelling specific performance, whereas the Defendant – on its Counterclaim – successfully sought a refund of monies that had already been provided to the Claimant, arguing that the services under the agreement had not been properly rendered (Justices Sir Bruce Robertson, George Arestis and Dr Rashid Al-Anezi).

Mounib Harmoush v AHK Enterprise LLC [2023] QIC (F) 9, Fat Cat Café LLC v AHK Enterprise LLC [2023] QIC (F) 10, and Charm Café LLC v AHK Enterprise LLC [2023] QIC (F) 11

In three similar proceedings brought against the same Defendant – Mounib Harmoush v AHK Enterprise LLC [2023] QIC (F) 9, Fat Cat Café LLC v AHK Enterprise LLC [2023] QIC (F) 10, and Charm Café LLC v AHK Enterprise LLC [2023] QIC (F) 11 – the Claimants leased kiosks from the Defendant at the Arabian Village Project in Lusail in order to carry on business by providing food and drink to fans during the FIFA World Cup 2022. The Claimants alleged that the Defendant had breached the lease agreements in various ways. The Court (Justices George Arestis, Dr Rashid Al-Anezi and Fritz Brand) ruled in favour of the Defendant in each of the cases, noting that as a matter of construction, no breaches were made out.

Aegis Services LLC v Saga D&B Trading and Contracting WLL [2023] QIC (F) 22, Aegis Services LLC v Diamond Worldwide Trading Contracting & Services WLL [2023] QIC (F) 23, and Aegis Services LLC v Qatar Business Group Integrated WLL [2023] QIC (F) 24

In three cases filed by the same Claimant on the Small Claims Track – Aegis Services LLC v Saga D&B Trading and Contracting WLL [2023] QIC (F) 22, Aegis Services LLC v Diamond Worldwide Trading Contracting & Services WLL [2023] QIC (F) 23, and Aegis Services LLC v Qatar Business Group Integrated WLL [2023] QIC (F) 24 - the Court (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favour of the Claimant who had brought similar claims against Defendants for breach of contract. The Claimant had, in each case, fulfilled the terms of the contract between the parties, with each Defendant not paying the Claimant for the services rendered. The Court ruled in favour of the Claimant in each case for the debt. The Court also ruled in each case that where cases are allocated to the Small Claims Track pursuant to Practice Direction No. 1 of 2022, and where the matter goes undefended, it is important that the cases are dealt with as quickly and as efficiently as possible; thus, such claims will usually be dealt with without the need for an application for summary judgment.

Manan Jain v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (F) 27

Manan Jain v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (F) 27 was a Small Claims Track case in which the parties had entered into a contract for the Defendant to provide immigration services to the Claimant. Almost straight after the Claimant had paid the Defendant, the former asked for a refund. The Defendant – who had done little to no work pursuant to the agreement – refused, pointing to an express term in the contract. The Court (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favour of the Claimant on two alternative bases: either pursuant to the rule concerning unilateral mistake in article 33 of the QFC Contract Regulations 2005, or, alternatively, by way of force majeure under article 94 of the QFC Contract Regulations 2005.

Zaid Al-Salman v Rashid Al-Mansoori [2023] QIC (F) 28

In Zaid Al-Salman v Rashid Al-Mansoori [2023] QIC (F) 28, the First Instance Circuit (Justices Lord Hamilton, Fritz Brand, and Ali Malek KC) found in favour of the Claimant under the terms of a shareholders’/exit agreement whereby the Defendant was bound to take certain steps to recover debts, a percentage of which were to be paid to the Claimant upon recovery. The Court found in the Claimant’s favour under an implied term derived from the QFC Contract Regulations 2005.

Aegis Services LLC v Doha Insulation Trading & Contracting LLC [2023] QIC (A) 3

In Aegis Services LLC v Doha Insulation Trading & Contracting LLC [2023] QIC (A) 3, the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Dr Hassan Al-Sayed and Yongjian Zhang) upheld the decision of the First Instance Circuit in the context of a breach of contract claim. The Applicant contended that the individual who signed a contract on its behalf was nothing to do with the company and was not on its establishment card. The main issue was whether the Defendant had grounds for contending that it was not bound by the contract as the person who executed it lacked the requisite authority. The Court held that there was no basis for the Defendant to contend that it was not bound: the signatory had ostensible authority on the basis of the principle set out in article 64(2) of the QFC Contract Regulations 2005 (namely where the principal causes a third party reasonably to believe that the agent has authority, and that the agent is acting within the scope of that authority). The signatory was a manager of the Defendant. He was also given the company stamp of the Defendant. This was sufficient to give the Claimant reasonable belief that the signatory had the necessary authority. Permission to appeal was refused. APPELLATE [BREACH OF CONTRACT]

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.

Asma Al-Saud v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (F) 36

In Asma Al-Saud v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (F) 36, the Court (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang) ruled in favour of the Claimant who sought a refund of fees paid to the Defendant when execution of the contract became impossible on the grounds of force majeure, as contemplated by article 94 of the QFC Contract Regulations 2005.

Fat Cat Café LLC v AHK Enterprise LLC [2023] QIC (A) 8

Fat Cat Café LLC v AHK Enterprise LLC [2023] QIC (A) 8 was an application for permission to appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) as there were no substantial grounds for considering that the decision of the First Instance Circuit was erroneous and would result in substantial injustice.

Aegis Services LLC v EMobility Certification Services and others [2023] QIC (F) 37

In Aegis Services LLC v EMobility Certification Services and others [2023] QIC (F) 37 (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang), the Court ruled that the usual principle, noted in article 33.2 of the Court’s Regulations and Procedural Rules that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party, ought not to be disapplied despite the Claimant’s application. This followed the ratio of X v M [2023] QIC (F) 30.

Amberberg Limited and another v Thomas Fewtrell and others [2023] QIC (F) 41

In Amberberg Limited and another v Thomas Fewtrell and others [2023] QIC (F) 41, the First Instance Circuit (Justices Lord Hamilton, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) – following a trial on liability, judgment for which was issued in December 2022 ([2022] QIC (F) 34) – assessed quantum in relation to a misrepresentation claim in the context of a breach of warranty in a share purchase agreement. Following a close analysis, the Court was not of the view that loss was proven by Claimant and awarded nominal damages.

Devisers Advisory Services LLC v Muhammad Zahid [2023] QIC (A) 11

Devisers Advisory Services LLC v Muhammad Zahid [2023] QIC (A) 11 was a case in which the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE and Helen Mountfield KC) upheld the First Instance Circuit which had ruled that the losing Claimant should not be successful in its claim for specific performance of a contract, and instead had to refund monies to the Defendant pursuant to his counterclaim.

Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP v Harinsa Contracting Company (Qatar) WLL [2023] QIC (F) 46

Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP v Harinsa Contracting Company (Qatar) WLL [2023] QIC (F) 46 (Justices George Arestis, Ali Malek KC and Helen Mountfield KC) was a case in which a law firm successfully claimed against a former client for unpaid fees.

Whitepencil LLC v Ahmed Barakat [2023] QIC (F) 47

Whitepencil LLC v Ahmed Barakat [2023] QIC (F) 47 was a case in which the First Instance Circuit (Justices George Arestis, Ali Malek KC and Helen Mountfield KC) found in favour of the Claimant law firm who claimed unpaid fees from a former client.

Tahar Rais v Al Fardan Group and Aliz Technologies QFZ LLC [2023] QIC (F) 49

In Tahar Rais v Al Fardan Group and Aliz Technologies QFZ LLC [2023] QIC (F) 49, the First Instance Circuit (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang) found in favour of the Claimant who, having been offered a position with the Second Defendant which he accept, found himself in want of employment when the position was withdrawn shortly before he arrived in Doha. The Court awarded him two months’ salary, which was the notice period provided for in his contract. The case against the First Defendant was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Costs

Fadi Sabsabi v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (F) 4

Fadi Sabsabi v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (F) 4 concerned the question of whether a party to litigation who had not disclosed the fact that they were in receipt of legal advice – and therefore were incurring costs that they would seek to recoup from the other party in the event that they were successful in the litigation – were entitled, as the successful party, to some or all of those costs from the other party. The Court (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, George Arestis and Fritz Brand) ruled that the successful Claimant was not entitled to its costs in these circumstances.

Mieczyslaw Dominik Wernikowski v CHM Global LLC [2023] QIC (C) 1

Mieczyslaw Dominik Wernikowski v CHM Global LLC [2023] QIC (C) 1 was a costs decision. Following a trial, the successful Claimant – a litigant-in-person – applied to recover their costs from the Defendant. The question was thus: at what rate can a successful, non-lawyer litigant-in-person be compensated for the time they have spent preparing and advancing their claim? The Regulations and Procedural Rules of the Court do not provide any basis upon which to make such a calculation. The decision noted that the two questions were: had the Claimant, in fact, incurred costs, and if so, how should they be quantified? The decision goes on to note that (a) in principle, costs ought to be recoverable for a litigant-in-person, and that (b) it would rarely be appropriate to base an hourly rate on the occupation of the litigant-in-person (noting that different considerations apply where the litigant-in-person is a professional law firm). The decision concluded that a litigant-in-person who cannot prove some financial loss can be compensated at the rate of QAR 100.00 per hour.

Stephen Ferris v Sanguine Investment Managers LLC and Christopher John Leach [2023] QIC (C) 2

Stephen Ferris v Sanguine Investment Managers LLC and Christopher John Leach [2023] QIC (C) 2 was a costs judgment of the Registrar in which the Claimant was awarded his reasonable costs of an enforcement application.

Amberberg and another v Thomas Fewtrell and others [2023] QIC (C) 3

In Amberberg and another v Thomas Fewtrell and others [2023] QIC (C) 3, the Registrar made various awards of costs in a case in which there were two Claimants and four Defendants. Comment was made to the effect that where without prejudice offers to settle had been made, parties ought to be explicit and provide full details relating to those offers in order for submissions to be of utility.

Stephen Ferris v Sanguine Investment Managers LLC and Christopher John Leach [2023] QIC (C) 5

In Stephen Ferris v Sanguine Investment Managers LLC and Christopher John Leach [2023] QIC (C) 5, the Registrar awarded the Claimant its costs in full pursuant to an application for enforcement of a long-standing debt.

Xavier Roig Castello v Match Hospitality Consultants LLC [2023] QIC (F) 30

In Xavier Roig Castello v Match Hospitality Consultants LLC [2023] QIC (F) 30, the First Instance Circuit (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, Lord Hamilton and Fritz Brand) considered the question of whether the Claimant, who had withdrawn his claim shortly before trial, was to be considered the “unsuccessful party” for the purposes of costs within the meaning of article 33.2 of the Court’s Regulations and Procedural Rules. In circumstances in which the Claimant simply withdrew his entire claim, the Defendant was deemed to be the successful party within the meaning of the Rules and therefore was entitled to its reasonable costs to be assessed if not agreed.

Fadi Sabsabi v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (A) 6

In Fadi Sabsabi v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (A) 6, the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Chelva Rajah SC, and Ali Malek KC) granted permission and allowed the costs appeal on one of two grounds, namely that prior to the First Instance Circuit rendering a costs decision, it did not give parties an opportunity to make submissions as to the appropriate costs order to be made.

Arwa Zakaria Ahmed Abu Hamdieh v Lesha Bank LLC [2023] QIC (A) 7

In Arwa Zakaria Ahmed Abu Hamdieh v Lesha Bank LLC [2023] QIC (A) 7, the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) awarded the successful Appellant Bank its costs of the proceedings before the First Instance Circuit and the Appellate Division itself, dealing with, inter alia, the question of retainers.

Fadi Sabsabi v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (A) 9

In Fadi Sabsabi v Devisers Advisory Services LLC [2023] QIC (A) 9, the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Chelva Rajah SC and Ali Malek KC) awarded the Appellant costs in a long-running case in which the Respondent had been successful on the substance at First Instance.

Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2023] QIC (C) 6

Rudolfs Veiss v Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2023] QIC (C) 6 was a costs judgment which covered a number of important matters of principle including hourly rates for litigants-in-person, and the approach to allegations of fraud.

Amberberg Limited and another v Thomas Fewtrell and Others [2023] QIC (F) 45

In Amberberg Limited and another v Thomas Fewtrell and Others [2023] QIC (F) 45, the First Instance Circuit (Justices Lord Hamilton, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) made various costs orders, including an order that each party bears its own costs in a case in which the Claimant was awarded only nominal damages.

Accord Pitch LLC v New Smart Contracting and Services WLL [2023] QIC (C) 7

In Accord Pitch LLC v New Smart Contracting and Services WLL [2023] QIC (C) 7 the Registrar awarded the successful Claimant its reasonable costs following its successful substantive claim against the Defendant.

Employment

Khadija Al-Marhoon v Ooredoo Group Company [2023] QIC (F) 5

Khadija Al-Marhoon v Ooredoo Group Company [2023] QIC (F) 5 was a case in which the Claimant sued her former employer for, inter alia, unlawful dismissal and race discrimination. The unlawful dismissal claims succeeded, but the Court (Justices Fritz Brand, Helen Mountfield KC and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) rejected the race discrimination claim. The Court found that the Defendant had failed to follow its own HR policy that formed part of the employment contract of the Claimant by not considering whether a disciplinary hearing was required prior to the Claimant’s dismissal. She was awarded damages for unlawful dismissal and a further sum by way of moral damages. EMPLOYMENT

Saravanan Vaithiyananathan v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 12

In Saravanan Vaithiyananathan v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 12, the Court (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, Fritz Brand and Helen Mounfield KC) ruled in favour of the Claimant who alleged that his former employer did not honour his end-of-service payments. EMPLOYMENT

John Fredy Garcia Hernandez v The London Language Factory Limited [2023] QIC (F) 13

In John Fredy Garcia Hernandez v The London Language Factory Limited [2023] QIC (F) 13, the Court ruled (for the first time by a majority order [with the other member of the constitution writing a judgment that concurred in part and dissented in part]; Justices George Arestis, Dr Rashid Al-Anezi and Fritz Brand) that an employer had lawfully terminated a contract of employment on the grounds that – as provided for in the contract of employment – circumstances arose that constituted a change of scope of the Defendant’s business which resulted in the Claimant’s position becoming redundant, namely the cancellation of two contracts with clients of the Defendant. The Court awarded the Claimant outstanding salary and payment in lieu of notice, but no compensation for breach of contract as none was made out. The dissenting judge was of the view that the Defendant had unlawfully terminated the contract of employment as the cancellation of the two contracts with clients of the Defendant did not constitute a “change of scope”. EMPLOYMENT

Mark Krombas v Epicure Investment Management LLC [2023] QIC (F) 15

In Mark Krombas v Epicure Investment Management LLC [2023] QIC (F) 15, the Claimant alleged that the Defendant did not pay a bonus to which he was entitled. The Defendant applied for summary judgment on the basis that the Claimant had no prospect of success. The Court (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang) disagreed, was of the view that the matter should proceed to trial, and found in favour of the Claimant. EMPLOYMENT

Kiran Kumar Parisa v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 17 and Abdul Jameel Muhammed v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 18

Kiran Kumar Parisa v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 17 and Abdul Jameel Muhammed v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 18 were the 12th and 13th successful claims brought since June 2022 against the same company for breach of contract in the context of non-payment of arrears of remuneration. The Court (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) directed in both cases that the judgments be referred to the Employment Standards Office of the Qatar Financial Centre to consider potential action pursuant to Schedule 1 to the QFC Employment Regulations 2020. EMPLOYMENT

Arwa Zakaria Ahmed Abu Hamdieh v Lesha Bank LLC [2023] QIC (A) 1

The Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) handed down its decision in Arwa Zakaria Ahmed Abu Hamdieh v Lesha Bank LLC [2023] QIC (A) 1. This case concerned the duties of a former employer when an expatriate ex-employee seeks to change employment and transfer to another employer established outside the Qatar Financial Centre i.e. from a QFC entity to a non-QFC entity. This case is particularly important as it clarifies the obligations of a former employer taking account of the significant reforms made to the labour and immigration laws in the State of Qatar in 2020. Given the large number of expatiates in the jurisdiction, this case is of wide significance and application, and of general public importance. The Appellate Division conducted a very careful and thorough analysis of both the formal legal requirements as well as the practicalities of transferring employment, which entailed a close reading of a number of QFC laws and regulations, alongside those generally applicable in the State of Qatar but outside the QFC, and the interplay between the two.

Faisal Hameed v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 19, Umar Riaz v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 20, and Sabeer Abdulsalam v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 21

In three similar cases against the same Defendant – Faisal Hameed v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 19, Umar Riaz v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 20, and Sabeer Abdulsalam v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 21 – the Court found in favour of three Claimants against the same company for failure to pay dues following the termination of their employment. The Court (Justices Her Honour Frances Kirkham CBE, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) also referred the matter to the Employment Standards Office of the QFC to consider whether or not to impose penalties pursuant to Schedule 1 to the Qatar Financial Centre Employment Regulations 2020.

Sujan Guchhait v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 25

In Sujan Guchhait v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 25, the Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) ruled in favour of a Claimant who brought a claim against a former employer for unpaid end-of-service dues. The Court referred to matter to the Employment Standards Office of the Qatar Financial Centre to consider penalties pursuant to Schedule 26 to the Qatar Financial Centre Employment Regulations 2020.

Irfan Qureshi v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 26

Irfan Qureshi v Meinhardt BIM Studios LLC [2023] QIC (F) 26 was another claim against a same Defendant for arrears of remuneration post-termination of employment. The Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) ruled in favour of the Claimant.

Khadija Al-Marhoon v Ooredoo Group Company [2023] QIC (A) 5

In Khadija Al-Marhoon v Ooredoo Group Company [2023] QIC (A) 5, the Appellate Division (Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, President, and Justices Sir William Blair and Dr Rashid Al-Anezi) upheld the decision of the First Instance Circuit in the context of a claim for unfair dismissal. The Appellate Division agreed with the First Instance Circuit that whilst the QFC Employment Regulations 2020 provide for summary dismissal in the context of an employee who is absent for 7 days without leave, the Defendant company’s HR policy – incorporated into the contract of employment – provided for further employee protections which the company was therefore bound to honour during the dismissal process. Having not followed that policy, the Defendant company was liable. However, the Appellate Division significantly reduced the damages payable to the Claimant, including setting aside the moral damages that the First Instance Circuit had awarded.

Accord Pitch LLC v New Smart Contracting and Services WLL [2023] QIC (F) 31

Accord Pitch LLC v New Smart Contracting and Services WLL [2023] QIC (F) 31 was a case in which the First Instance Circuit (Justices Fritz Brand, George Arestis, and Yongjian Zhang) gave judgment for a Claimant in respect of a sum of money which was accidentally overpaid to the Defendant in the context of a commercial contract. The Defendant had not returned all of the money. Summary judgment was given in favour of the Claimant, with the Defendant ordered to repay the Claimant on two bases: (i) unjust enrichment, and (ii) contract on the ground of repeated undertakings from the Defendant to repay the overpaid amount, undertakings which were accepted by the Claimant.

Hadi Jaloul v Experts Credit Solutions Consultancy LLC [2023] QIC (F) 32

Hadi Jaloul v Experts Credit Solutions Consultancy LLC [2023] QIC (F) 32 was a Small Claims Track case in which the First Instance Circuit (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand, and Yongjian Zhang) held that the Claimant had been denied his incentive bonus which had been agreed in his contract of employment, and ordered the Defendant to pay the Claimant his dues. The Court in this case did not require an application for summary judgment on the ground that a requirement would run contrary to the spirit of the Small Claims Track procedures to deal with such claims expeditiously and cost-effectively.

Klaas Bouwman v Kofler Group Middle East LLC [2023] QIC (F) 38

Klaas Bouwman v Kofler Group Middle East LLC [2023] QIC (F) 38 was a case in which the Court (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang) held that the Defendant had not unlawfully dismissed the Claimant when the latter had not provided compliant notes from a medical professional during his sick leave. The Claimant was awarded, however, end of service dues.

Mark Krombas v Epicure Investment Management LLC [2023] QIC (F) 39

In Mark Krombas v Epicure Investment Management LLC [2023] QIC (F) 39, the Court (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand and Yongjian Zhang) found in favour of a Claimant who was not awarded a discretionary bonus by his former employer at the end of his employment. The Court found that, whilst the bonus was contractually discretionary, that discretion was not unfettered, and its exercise was governed by a number of restrictions.

Aarnout Henri Nicolaes Wennekrs v Qatar Free Zones Authority [2023] QIC (F) 42

In Aarnout Henri Nicolaes Wennekrs v Qatar Free Zones Authority [2023] QIC (F) 42, the First Instance Circuit (Justices Lord Hamilton, Ali Malek KC and Dr Muna Al-Marzouqi) awarded the Claimant QAR 1,128,919 in respect of unpaid salary, end of term gratuity, accrued annual leave, furniture allowance, and also for a workplace injury he had suffered (the key question being whether or not, under the relevant law, fault was required on the part of the employer [a question answered in the negative]).

Tarek Choudhury v Prime Financial Solutions LLC; Twanette Murray v International Business Group WLL and Prime Financial Solutions LLC; and Nancy Kilany v International Business Group WLL and Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2023] QIC (F) 44

In Tarek Choudhury v Prime Financial Solutions LLC; Twanette Murray v International Business Group WLL and Prime Financial Solutions LLC; and Nancy Kilany v International Business Group WLL and Prime Financial Solutions LLC [2023] QIC (F) 44, the Court (Justices George Arestis, Fritz Brand and Helen Mountfield KC) awarded the Claimants various sums of backpay minus partial payments that had been made during the litigation.

Interim Relief

Aegis Services LLC v EMobility Certification Services and others [2023] QIC (F) 33

Aegis Services LLC v EMobility Certification Services and others [2023] QIC (F) 33 primarily concerned an application for an interim injunction heard by the First Instance Circuit (Justices Dr Rashid Al-Anezi, Fritz Brand, and Yongjian Zhang). Three individual Defendants had gone to work for the fourth Defendant, a body corporate, which was a direct competitor of the Claimant. This was allegedly in breach of restrictive covenants in the employment contracts of the three individual Defendants with the Claimant, which purported to prevent employees working for competitors of the Claimant for a period of two years on pain of a penalty of USD 500,000. The Claimant also alleged that the Defendants had used confidential information for the benefit of their new employer in breach of contract. On the restraint of trade point, the Defendants relied on two cases of this Court which held that almost identical contractual clauses in agreements between the same Claimant and other Defendants were unenforceable under article 20 of the QFC Employment Regulations 2020. The Court in the instant cases held that the period of the restraint of trade in the contracts coupled with the penalty was unreasonable. The Court was of the view that on the information before it, it was not able to trim down the period of restraint of trade to render those provisions reasonable and therefore this aspect of the claim failed. Further, on the evidence before it, the Court was not satisfied that the Defendants had used the Claimant’s confidential information. For those reasons, the application for the interim injunction was refused.