In November 2025, the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan published an analysis of case law on the setting aside of arbitral awards and disputes over the validity of arbitration agreements for the first half of 2025. The document reflects current trends and problematic issues arising in the consideration of arbitration-related cases.
During the reporting period, 315 applications to set aside arbitral awards were filed with the courts of appeal. Of these, 58% were returned, while the remaining 113 were considered on the merits. As a result, 18 awards (15.9%) were set aside, while in 95 cases the applications were dismissed.
The analysis identified a number of systemic grounds for setting aside awards:
1) consideration of disputes under contracts between microfinance organisations and individuals not engaged in entrepreneurial activity;
2) absence of a valid arbitration agreement — the parties had not signed a contract containing an arbitration clause, or the claimant had not given notice, during pre-trial settlement, of the intention to refer the dispute to arbitration;
3) violations in cases involving legally incapacitated persons;
4) improper notification of the parties — the Supreme Court notes that notification via WhatsApp cannot serve as the sole evidence of a party's notification, while the parties' conduct must also be assessed against the principles of good faith and fairness in order to prevent abuse of rights;
5) non-arbitrability of the dispute.
The Supreme Court paid particular attention to the validity of arbitration agreements. In particular, it emphasised that in contracts of adhesion an arbitration clause may be recognised as valid only if it was concluded after the dispute arose. The Court also confirmed the principle of the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, under which the question of the tribunal's own jurisdiction must be decided by the arbitral tribunal itself.
Forty appeals against judicial acts in these categories of cases were filed with the cassation instance. Following their consideration, only two were reversed, which indicates the stability of law enforcement practice.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan clarified that an application for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be filed with the court at the location of the debtor's property only where the location of the legal entity's governing body is unknown. If the location of the legal entity is known, the application must be filed with the competent court at the place of its registration.
For the Arbitration Centre, this analysis is of significant practical value. The conclusions presented contribute to improving the quality of arbitration procedures and preventing the setting aside of arbitral awards.
During the reporting period, 315 applications to set aside arbitral awards were filed with the courts of appeal. Of these, 58% were returned, while the remaining 113 were considered on the merits. As a result, 18 awards (15.9%) were set aside, while in 95 cases the applications were dismissed.
The analysis identified a number of systemic grounds for setting aside awards:
1) consideration of disputes under contracts between microfinance organisations and individuals not engaged in entrepreneurial activity;
2) absence of a valid arbitration agreement — the parties had not signed a contract containing an arbitration clause, or the claimant had not given notice, during pre-trial settlement, of the intention to refer the dispute to arbitration;
3) violations in cases involving legally incapacitated persons;
4) improper notification of the parties — the Supreme Court notes that notification via WhatsApp cannot serve as the sole evidence of a party's notification, while the parties' conduct must also be assessed against the principles of good faith and fairness in order to prevent abuse of rights;
5) non-arbitrability of the dispute.
The Supreme Court paid particular attention to the validity of arbitration agreements. In particular, it emphasised that in contracts of adhesion an arbitration clause may be recognised as valid only if it was concluded after the dispute arose. The Court also confirmed the principle of the autonomy of the arbitration agreement, under which the question of the tribunal's own jurisdiction must be decided by the arbitral tribunal itself.
Forty appeals against judicial acts in these categories of cases were filed with the cassation instance. Following their consideration, only two were reversed, which indicates the stability of law enforcement practice.
The Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan clarified that an application for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be filed with the court at the location of the debtor's property only where the location of the legal entity's governing body is unknown. If the location of the legal entity is known, the application must be filed with the competent court at the place of its registration.
For the Arbitration Centre, this analysis is of significant practical value. The conclusions presented contribute to improving the quality of arbitration procedures and preventing the setting aside of arbitral awards.