Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 60

Summary: - Capital markets. Establishment of a specialised judicial apparatus through which disputes arising in connection with the application of the provisions of this Law may be resolved easily and readily; the Law took care to repeal any provision conflicting with its provisions. The reason therefor. Articles 108 and 116 of Law 7 of 2010 concerning the Establishment of the Capital Market Authority and the Regulation of Securities. - The Capital Markets Court. The criterion for its jurisdiction. The dispute must arise from the application of the provisions of Law 7 of 2010 concerning the Establishment of the Capital Markets Authority and the Regulation of Securities and the rules and regulations governing the securities market, and enforcement disputes relating to judgments issued by it; its provisions supersede those of any other law. An example concerning a dispute falling outside the jurisdiction of the non-criminal circuit of the Capital Markets Court. Rule: The provision in Article 108 of Law No. 7 of 2010 concerning the Establishment of the Capital Markets Authority and the Regulation of Securities that "A court called the ‘Capital Markets Court’ shall be established within the Court of First Instance. Its seat shall be determined by a decision of the Minister of Justice with the approval of the Supreme Judicial Council. This court shall consist of the following: 1- ... 2- Non-criminal circuits having exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate non-criminal actions relating to commercial, civil and administrative disputes arising from the application of the provisions of this Law and the rules and regulations governing the securities market, and substantive enforcement disputes relating to judgments issued by them, irrespective of the value of such disputes", and in Article 116 that "The non-criminal circuits of the Court of First Instance shall, of their own motion, refer actions pending before them that have come within the jurisdiction of the Capital Market Court under the provisions of this Law to the latter court in their existing state", indicate, in accordance with the explanatory memorandum to the Law, that a judicial apparatus specialising in capital market activity was established to facilitate the easy and ready resolution of disputes arising in connection with the application of the provisions of this Law. The Law took care to repeal any provision conflicting with its provisions, whatever the subject matter of that provision, in recognition that its provisions are those of a special law concerning capital markets which supersedes, in its application, any other special or general law. The criterion for the jurisdiction of the Capital Market Court is that the dispute arise from the application of the provisions of Law No. 7 of 2010 concerning the Establishment of the Capital Markets Authority and the Regulation of Securities, and the rules and regulations governing the securities market, and substantive enforcement disputes relating to judgments issued by it. That being so, the first respondent brought his counterclaim seeking an order requiring the appellants, jointly, to pay Al-Hadi Real Estate Company (in liquidation) the amount of 8328902‚866 dinars, representing the indebtedness due from them as a result of the third respondent bank's liquidation of the investment portfolio owned by the company to discharge the second appellant's debt secured by a pledge of that portfolio. The appellants also brought their counterclaim seeking the appointment of an expert to identify the person who established the investment portfolios registered in the name of Al-Hadi Real Estate Company (in liquidation) and their true owner, to identify the loans obtained in the company's name, the person who obtained them and the person repaying them, whether they had been repaid from his personal account or the company's account, and the amount remaining unpaid, and to settle the account between the parties so as to determine the difference due to them from the company, preparatory to a judgment establishing their entitlement to recover those amounts from the company's liquidator. These actions, as such, are not commercial disputes arising from the application of the provisions of the aforementioned Law No. 7 of 2010 concerning the Establishment of the Capital Markets Authority and the Regulation of Securities and the rules and regulations governing the securities market. They therefore do not fall within the jurisdiction of the aforementioned non-criminal circuit of the Capital Markets Court. Since the first-instance judgment, upheld by the challenged judgment, adhered to this view and ruled on the merits of the dispute, it neither contravened the law nor erred in its application, and the challenge is without foundation.