After more than 24 years of practice in courts and arbitration, I have come to a simple conclusion: winning a case is not a “victory” in the conventional sense, but rather an indication that something went wrong at an earlier stage and the matter ultimately had to be taken to court. Litigation is always more expensive than it initially appears.
Practice: Dispute Resolution and Arbitration
Author: Duman Akhmetov, Partner at Salus Legal
Publication date: August 2026
After more than 24 years of practice in courts and arbitration, I have come to a simple conclusion: winning a case is not a “victory” in the conventional sense, but rather an indication that something went wrong at an earlier stage and the matter ultimately had to be taken to court. Litigation is always more expensive than it initially appears. The losses are not limited to court fees or lawyers’ fees. They also include the working time of senior company executives, relationships with counterparties, and the company’s reputation in a market where people usually know one another.
Take a typical debt recovery dispute. Direct costs can amount to tens of millions of tenge, while the process can take six to twelve months or longer. This is without even considering the possibility that the money may never reach the claimant’s account, even if the court rules in its favour.
This does not mean that litigation should be avoided at all costs. It means that, by the time a claim is filed, most manageable risks should already have been addressed at an earlier stage — through the contract, correspondence, a formal claim and negotiations. When a matter does reach court, I find that in nine cases out of ten there was a point at which the situation could have been managed, but was left unattended.
Where Control Is Most Often Lost
Claims and correspondence that receive no response or follow-up. In Kazakhstan, contracts often contain a mandatory pre-trial procedure. Without sending a formal claim, a statement of claim may be returned. But the issue is not merely procedural. A claim is often sent simply as a formality, without setting a response deadline or developing a strategy in case the counterparty remains silent.
A properly prepared claim is not merely the first step towards litigation; it is often the final opportunity to resolve a dispute without going to court. When the counterparty sees that the position has been carefully prepared and the evidence collected, it may prefer to reach an agreement.
Contractual provisions that nobody took the time to amend. Vague provisions concerning payment, acceptance of works, force majeure or jurisdiction are not technical details — they can become the subject of a future dispute. I regularly see contracts where a party understood the risk posed by certain wording at the signing stage but chose not to insist on an amendment in order to “avoid delaying the deal”. A year or two later, that same wording becomes the key argument in court — but no longer in favour of the party that remained silent.
Negotiations that continue without structure or deadlines. Negotiations are, in themselves, the right path. The problem arises when negotiations have no clear objective, no documented agreements and no defined point at which the parties acknowledge that an agreement cannot be reached and that a formal procedure must begin.
Unstructured negotiations lasting for months can often be worse than moving quickly to a formal claim and litigation, because limitation periods may expire in the meantime, evidence may be lost, and a party’s position may become blurred through informal correspondence.
Three Types of Situations Where Preventive Work Saves More Than Winning a Lawsuit
First, disputes between business partners — for example, disputes concerning a participant’s withdrawal from an LLP and the valuation of their interest. Historically, this has been one of the most contentious issues when businesses are divided in Kazakhstan. In most cases, conflict can be mitigated in advance by clearly establishing the procedure for withdrawal and valuation of the interest in the charter and founding documents before the relationship between the partners deteriorates.
A lawyer who establishes these mechanisms when a company is being formed or restructured can save the client months of litigation and preserve business relationships that are usually difficult to restore after court proceedings.
Second, commercial disputes with foreign counterparties. Here, preventive work means choosing the applicable law, jurisdiction and arbitration clause when the contract is concluded — not after the counterparty has stopped making payments. A properly drafted dispute resolution clause — whether providing for the AIFC Court, the IAC, Atameken, the Kazakhstan International Arbitration or another institutional arbitration forum — makes the dispute resolution process more predictable if the counterparty actually breaches its obligations.
Third, employment disputes and disputes with regulators. Here, the cost of a mistake is not limited to direct financial payments. It can also affect the reputation of an employer or a responsible market participant. A compliance audit and properly maintained employment documentation before a conflict arises will almost always cost less than defending a case in court and subsequently rebuilding the company’s reputation.
Conclusion
Litigation is not part of a business strategy; it is an acknowledgement that preventive mechanisms have failed or were never put in place. Legal risk management should take place at the contract, correspondence and negotiation stages — not when a statement of claim is being filed.
Before initiating a dispute, we recommend asking one question: what could have been corrected a month or a year earlier that ultimately led to this situation? The answer should then be used to build stronger protection for the future, regardless of the outcome of the current case.
