December 6 Main results of the day

The Arbitration Court of the Moscow District confirmed the legality of judicial acts on the refusal to recover more than 45 million rubles from the contractor. The institution filed a claim against the contractor, the Principal of the Bureau, to recover the amount of the listed advances under a number of contract agreements for the performance of restoration work. Considering the contracts to be terminated, when considering the case, the Plaintiff tried to prove that the work actually performed by the Contractor was not subject to acceptance and payment due to the presence of claims against the executive documentation. However, the Bureau’s lawyers managed to persuade the arbitration courts to their side, convincing them that the delay in transferring the executive documentation was not caused by any shortcomings in the work performed, and the executive documentation was corrected primarily at the request of the Plaintiff himself. Thus, the lawyers managed to prevent the unjustified recovery of funds from the Principal and prove that the work actually performed by him is subject to payment. The interests of the Principal were represented by Yakov Prisyazhnyuk, Head of the practice of resolving economic disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow City Court upheld the decision of the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow to deny the Plaintiff’s claim against the Principal for the obligation to provide copies of agreements on the transfer of non-exclusive rights to use the results of intellectual activity of a famous film and theater director. During the legal dispute, the lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” were able to prove that the Plaintiff had chosen the wrong method of protecting rights, satisfying the claim would not lead to the restoration of the allegedly violated rights, at the same time, the Plaintiff’s behavior itself is contradictory, aimed solely at abusing his right, which is an independent basis for refusing to satisfy the claim. Thus, the decision of the court of first instance, rendered in favor of the Principal, entered into legal force. The Principal’s interests were represented by Nikita Filippov, Head of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, and Tatyana Bogomolova, lawyer.