March 19 Main results of the day

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the Company’s claims against the Principal for the collection of debt in the amount of 475,479 rubles, penalties for the future (up to the date of actual execution of the court decision) under the contract for the development of working and project documentation.

The Bureau’s lawyers proved that the statute of limitations had passed due to the Company’s incorrect and unsystematic interpretation of the provisions of the contract. At the same time, we have presented a chronological chain of deadlines within which the Company was obliged to transfer the results of work and demand payment, which was not done. As a result, the court rejected the Company’s arguments regarding the date of the beginning of the limitation period, and our interpretation of the provisions of the contract and determination of the chronology of the main contractual periods was recognized as correct, and therefore the court established that the limitation period had passed, and the claims were denied in full.

The Moscow Arbitration Court refused to satisfy the claims of almost 68 million rubles.

A contract was concluded between the parties for the performance of design work, which provided for a condition to increase the price of the Contract with an increase in the total cost of the work performed. The Principal of the Bureau accepted the design work, and paid the cost of the contract in full. However, a year later, the Opponent considered that the cost of the work actually performed was higher than it was originally stipulated by the contract. Moreover, it was significantly higher (by more than 60% of the original price). When going to court, the Opponent indicated that the cost of the work was subject to increase, since the parties had only reached an agreement on the preliminary cost of the work. However, the Bureau’s lawyers managed to convince the court that the opponent’s position was untenable, since the presence of a condition on the possibility of increasing the contract price does not in itself imply that the parties initially proceeded from the discrepancy between the cost of the work and the subject of the contract. At the same time, the Opponent did not notify the Principal in a timely manner about the increase in the cost of the work, and did not receive the Principal’s consent to change the price. The Opponent did not present to court any documents confirming additional expenses and an increase in the scope of work.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Alexander Uchaykin, senior lawyer of the Bureau’s economic dispute resolution practice

Statement of claim for recovery of 1.5 million rubles from the Principal left without consideration due to non-compliance with the pre-trial procedure for resolving the dispute.

The Bureau employee reminded the opponent of the need to comply with the terms of the contract when applying for judicial protection. The agreement concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant provides for the obligation of the parties to send any written requests by registered mail with a list of attachments. The Plaintiff’s claims for the recovery of funds, in turn, were based on a pre-trial claim sent by ordinary registered mail.

The court agreed with the arguments of the Bureau’s lawyer on the need to apply the “Review of the practice of application by arbitration courts of the provisions of procedural legislation on the mandatory pre-trial procedure for resolving a dispute,” approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on July 22, 2022, according to which, if the contract provides for sending a claim by a valuable letter with a list of attachments, failure to comply with this requirement entails leaving the claim without consideration on the basis of clause 2 Part 1 of Article 148 of Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

The arguments of the Plaintiff’s representative about the need to proceed to the consideration of the claim on the merits in connection with the actual receipt of the claim by the Defendant were ignored.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Daria Eliseeva, senior lawyer of the dispute resolution practice with government bodies.

The Krasnogorsk City Court of the Moscow Region issued a decision to satisfy the Principal’s claims for debt collection of more than 10 million rubles.

As part of the consideration of the dispute, it was necessary to prove the existence of a debt in the specified amount and the dishonest behavior of the Defendant in order to satisfy the claim for the recovery of the penalty in full. Attempts were made by the Defendant to dispute the debt; the court examined primary documentation and other documents confirming the stated claims. As a result of a lengthy trial and detailed preparation for the case by Marina Nikolaenko, Head of the practice of family and inheritance disputes of the Bureau of Lawyers “De Jure”, the claims were satisfied in full, including interest and penalties on the date of actual repayment of the debt were collected.