May 20 Main results of the day

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal agreed with our arguments and rejected the contractor’s appeal

Another victory in the construction contract!

A few months ago, we won a contract dispute in the court of first instance, protecting the interests of our Principal- the customer of the contract work. The judicial work was preceded by the Bureau’s lawyers providing support for the pre-trial procedure for presenting claims to the contractor, including the preparation of reasoned objections to the unilateral act of acceptance of work performed and notifications of cancellation of the contract due to the fault of the contractor. As a result of the consideration of the case in the court of first instance, the claim filed by us was fully satisfied, a non-worked advance in the amount of 2.2 million rubles was recovered in favor of the Principal of the Bureau, and penalties in a total amount of more than 5.7 million rubles; and the court also ordered the contractor to hand over the executive documentation for part of the work performed with the recovery of a court penalty in the amount of 100,000 rubles for each day of non-fulfillment of this requirement, the counterclaim was refused.

However, the case did not end there; the procedural opponent filed an appeal, citing arguments about the proper performance of work under the contract, the impossibility of transferring the executive documentation, and the validity of counterclaims for payment for work performed in excess of the advance received.

Maria Ovchinnikova, Head of the Department of Legal Support for Contractual and Judicial Work of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, having familiarized herself in detail with the arguments of the contractor’s appeal, gave the court of appeal reasoned explanations on each argument of the complaint and refuted the contractor’s position on the proper delivery of work under the contract.

Based on the results of consideration of the dispute in the court of appeal, the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal agreed with Maria’s position and refused to satisfy the contractor’s complaint, leaving unchanged the court’s decision to recover in favor of the Principal of the Bureau the non-worked advance payment, penalties, the obligation to transfer the executive documentation with the recovery of the astrent in an unprecedentedly large amount of 100,000 rubles/day, accrued after the court decision enters into legal force in case of non-fulfillment of this requirement.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal overturned the decision of the first instance court to fully satisfy the claims for collection of debt under the supply agreement from the Principal. A new judicial act was adopted in the case, completely refusing to satisfy the claims. The uniqueness of this process was that, as evidence of delivery of goods, the Plaintiff submitted a bilaterally signed UPD to the case file. At the same time, in the signature column of the recipient of the goods there was a certain signature of an unidentified person without deciphering the initials, position and affixing the seal of the Principal’s organization. The court of first instance considered that this evidence confirmed the fact of delivery of the goods and satisfied the claim, however, the Bureau’s lawyers managed to convince the appellate court that this evidence did not meet the criterion of reliability, as well as the absence of other evidence of delivery in the case materials, which resulted in a complete denial of the claim.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Dan Khorolets, lawyer of the practice of resolving economic disputes.