July 4 Main results of the day

The Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance on the refusal to recover 68 million rubles from the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”. The Plaintiff motivated his demands by increasing the estimated cost of the project work after passing the state examination of the project documentation. Lawyers of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” managed to convince the court of the insolvency of the Plaintiff’s arguments.

The interests of the Principal were represented by Alexander Uchaykin, Senior lawyer of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”.

The Moscow Arbitration Court released our Principal from collecting 189 million rubles from him.

Another victory in the construction contract!

A claim was filed against the Principal of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure” for the recovery of 189,000,000 rubles for work on the preparation of technical documentation for engineering and geological surveys at the Kazan–Yekaterinburg highway construction facility. Correspondence, invoices on repeated transfer of technical documentation and a unilateral act of acceptance of completed works with a cover letter sent by Russian post were presented as evidence of the completion of the work and their delivery.

Representing the interests of the Principal and having studied the case materials in detail, Maria Ovchinnikova, Head of the Department of Legal Support of Contractual and Judicial Work of the Bureau of Lawyers “De jure”, formed a legal position on protecting the interests of the Principal. Among other things, in the response to the claim and additional procedural documents, she reflected the Plaintiff’s violations of the procedure for the delivery of work, his failure to eliminate comments, she reflected the grounds for rejecting other arguments of the Plaintiff and accrued counterclaims for balancing for delay in completing work and violation of other contractual obligations by the contractor in an amount exceeding 130 million rubles in case the court finds grounds to satisfy the claim.

Also, taking into account a thorough analysis of the case materials, Maria established that the Plaintiff had forged the letter that allegedly sent the controversial act of acceptance of the work performed, whereas, based on the results of the check carried out by Maria, it was established that the customer had actually received a letter with the same details (number, date), but with a different text of the letter and under a different contract. In this regard, it was claimed that the Plaintiff had falsified evidence in the case. During the court session, based on the results of consideration of Maria’s application for falsification, the Plaintiff agreed to exclude the disputed letter from the evidence, which undoubtedly influenced the outcome of the trial.

Moreover, our procedural opponent was not helped by numerous petitions to involve third parties in the dispute and to request additional evidence. As a result of the consideration of the dispute, which lasted more than 8 months, we achieved a complete victory – the court refused to satisfy the claims in full.