Kashif Kamal Raja v Patron Network LLC

In the name of His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Emir of the State of Qatar Neutral Citation: [2026] QIC (F) 37

IN THE QATAR FINANCIAL CENTRE

CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL COURT

FIRST INSTANCE CIRCUIT Date: 24 June 2026 CASE NO: CTFIC0029/2025 Claimant Defendant

KASHIF KAMAL RAJA v

PATRON NETWORK LLC

JUDGMENT Before: Justice Fritz Brand Order 1. The Defendant is directed to pay to the Claimant forthwith the amount of QAR 119,695.21 together with interest on that amount, calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from 21 May 2025 to date of payment.

2. The Defendant is directed to pay the reasonable costs incurred by the Claimant in pursuing this claim. The quantum of such costs to be determined by the Registrar if not agreed. Judgment 1. The matter was remitted to this Court by the Appellate Division in a judgment dated 4 June 2026 under neutral citation number [2026] QIC (A) 10 (the ‘Appeal Judgment’). The facts are set out in the Appeal Judgment. Of relevance for present purposes are the following: i. The Claimant brought a claim to enforce a QFC Employment Standards Office (the ‘ESO’) Determination made in his favour against the Defendant on 21 May 2025 (the ‘Determination’) under the QFC Employment Regulations (as amended) ordering the Defendant to pay him QAR 119,695.21. ii. On 4 September 2025, an Order was made by this Court ([2025] QIC (F) 41) by which all further proceedings in the claim were stayed save for the purpose of carrying into effect a settlement made on 31 August 2025 (the ‘Settlement’). iii. The Claimant then approached the Appellate Division for an order that the settlement agreement, and by extension the stay of the claim, be set aside on the basis that the Settlement was obtained by unjustified threats made by the Defendant, and that in consequence it could be “avoided” under article 36 of the QFC Contract Regulations 2005. The application was opposed by the Defendant who denied that any such threats were made. iv. After hearing evidence, the Appellate Division accepted the Claimant’s account that the Settlement was vitiated by threats. 2 v. Accordingly, the Settlement was held to be invalid; the Order of this Court of 4 September 2025 was set aside; and the claim was remitted to this Court.

2. In QFC Employment Standards Office v Experts Credit Solutions Consultancy LLC [2026] QIC (F) 5 this Court held that it has the power to enforce a determination by the ESO as a statutory debt on application by the person in whose favour the Determination was made (or indeed upon the ESO’s application). In the light of that judgment, the Defendant was directed on 10 June 2026 to show cause (if any) by no later than 16.00 on 21 June 2026 why it should not be ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of QAR 119,695.21, together with interest on that amount, calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from 21 May 2025 to the date of payment.

3. Since the Defendant had failed to respond to the direction, I find it appropriate to grant an Order in those terms and I can see no reason why costs should not follow the event. By the Court, [signed] Justice Fritz Brand A signed copy of this Judgment has been filed with the Registry. 3 Representation The Claimant was self-represented. The Defendant was represented by Mr Sarvech Abbasi of Sarvech Legal Services (Islamabad, Pakistan) 4