March 26 Main results of the day

Five significant victories, five reasons to be proud!!!

The Moscow Arbitration Court resolved the dispute in favor of the Principal under three construction contracts.

A dispute arose between the Principal and the Сontractor over 3 construction contracts, 2 of which were that the contractor was obliged to carry out work on drilling wells. According to the remaining contract, there was no dispute between the parties about the reality of the work. The Principal only stated that the penalty for late completion of work was offset against his debt.

Over2 contracts, within the framework of which the parties argued about the reality of the work, the Contractor claimed that he had completed work on drilling wells of more than 30 meters, as a result of which he sent certificates of completion to the customer, which were left ignored by the latter. Thus, the Principal allegedly incurred a debt.

However, Ruslan Katan, senior lawyer of the practice of economic disputes, managed to convince the court of first instance that it does not follow from the evidence presented that the drilling work was completed, since the contracts provided that before starting work, the Principal sends the Contractor the initial documentation and provides permission for excavation. The contracts also stipulated that after completing the work, the Contractor was obliged to provide a photo report of the work performed. At the same time, the Contractor did not provide any of the above in the case materials and, moreover, claimed that the work was performed without the appropriate permits.

As a result, the Moscow Arbitration Court partially satisfied the Contractor’s claims, refusing to satisfy 2 of the 3 disputed contracts in full, and for the remaining contract set off the penalty for delay against the Principal’s debt.

The First Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction upheld the decision of the Moscow City Court to satisfy the administrative claims of the Bureau’s Principal to challenge the cadastral value of land plots.

Contrary to the arguments of the appeals of state bodies, Ilsur Zakirov, senior lawyer of the practice of dispute resolution with state bodies of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, who represented the interests of the Principal, managed to prove that the established cadastral value is overestimated, since it was determined by the mass valuation method without taking into account the individual characteristics of the Principal’s objects.

Arguments about the discrepancy to the established value were confirmed by the results of a forensic examination. As a result, the Principal will be able to optimize rental costs in the amount of more than 5 million rubles.

The Moscow City Court rejected a claim for copyright infringement on theatrical works in a dispute between an opponent and the Principal. The Plaintiff, the heir of the former artistic director of a famous Moscow theater, filed a lawsuit against the Principal to declare the contracts of the author’s order invalid. In July 2023, lawyer Nikita Filippov won the case in the first instance, and today the Moscow City Court upheld this decision, rejecting the heir’s complaint. The lawyer again proved that the exclusive right to use the results of intellectual activity was transferred by the testator during his lifetime. The director did not dispute these contracts and received fees under them.

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Moscow Arbitration Court to reject the claim of homeowners’ association against the owner of non-residential premises to restore the premises to their original form.

The Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” is the owner of non-residential premises in an apartment building and, in agreement with the competent authorities, has redeveloped them in order to use them in a more efficient way. However, the partnership considered that as a result of the redevelopment, common property was affected and filed a corresponding claim in court. Lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the panel of judges of the unfounded position of the applicant of the appeal, in connection with which the appealed judicial act was upheld.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Alexander Uchaykin, senior lawyer of the practice of resolving economic dispues of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.