Service
In construction contract disputes over payment, the scope and quality of work, work beyond the cost estimate and contractual penalties, the position is built on the construction documents: the cost estimate, acceptance certificates, work logs and correspondence.
We are most often instructed by:
The information on this website is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute a public offer.
Timing and fees are indicative and are confirmed when the engagement is agreed.
Work begins by checking how the construction documents record the scope, cost and timing of the work and which documents have been signed by both parties.
The handover and acceptance of the result of the work are documented by a certificate signed by both parties. A refusal to accept and the reply to it are prepared taking into account the rules on unilateral certificates.
A price dispute may concern work not included in the cost estimate. The fixed-price clause and correspondence on additional work are checked before the claims are calculated.
If the work has been performed with deviations from the contract that have impaired its result, questions for the expert examination on the causes of defects and the scope and cost of the work are prepared in advance.
The court may reduce a contractual penalty that is clearly disproportionate to the consequences of the breach of obligation. The calculation of a contractual penalty under a contract for work and objections to it are based on documents concerning the deadlines and the reasons for the delay.
The outcome of the service is the work performed within the scope agreed with the client.
The position is built on the documents and the circumstances of the case; the following points are relevant.
On the basis of the materials, the strengths and weaknesses of the position, the risks and the possible courses of action are identified.
For the chosen option, a plan is drawn up: the sequence of steps, timing and scope of work.
Appeals against court rulings
Challenge
The lower courts granted the claims of the insolvency administrator and the creditors to hold the director of a bankrupt company personally liable for its debts.
What was done
The case was taken to the Supreme Court. The good faith of each management decision was proved, and the Supreme Court set aside the rulings of the lower courts.
Challenging Transactions
Challenge
Shortly before its insolvency, the debtor diverted its assets through a chain of formally independent transactions, each of which looked like an ordinary business operation.
What was done
The full chain was reconstructed, and the interconnection of the transactions and the invalidity of each link were proved. The assets were returned to the bankruptcy estate in full.
Recovery of Damages
Challenge
The former director caused losses to the company, expecting that it would not be possible to gather evidence: numerous transactions, a branching structure and blurred chains of cause and effect.
What was done
A systematic analysis was carried out: the chronology of decisions was reconstructed, the link between the transactions and the damage was identified, and bad faith was proved. The damages were recovered in full; the court granted the claims without any reduction.
Defence against challenges
Challenge
There were attempts, by challenging transactions, to bring the client's property – acquired, paid for and in commercial use – into the bankruptcy estate of an insolvent counterparty.
What was done
The legal position was built on the independent nature of the client's ownership. The court dismissed all the claims challenging the transactions, and the assets were retained in full without concessions or settlement agreements.
Challenging resolutions
Challenge
The majority participant systematically blocked the distribution of profits by voting at the general meeting. The company was generating income, but the minority participant did not receive its share of the profits.
What was done
The general meeting resolutions were challenged. A mechanism compelling the distribution of profits was implemented through the courts.
The contract, the procedure for handing over the result of the work and the reasons for refusal, if any have been stated, are examined. A certificate that one party has not signed is signed by the other party with a note of the refusal; the court may declare such a certificate invalid only if it finds the reasons for the refusal justified.
After the documents have been assessed, a reply to the refusal, a demand for payment or a statement of claim is prepared.
The questions put to the specialist, the source documents, the methodology and information on the inspection of the site are examined. On that basis, objections are prepared and, where there are grounds, a motion for a court-appointed expert examination with questions for the expert.
A case can be taken over at any stage. The case file, the calculations and the motions filed, including those relating to the expert examination, are examined.
On that basis, the arguments and evidence that can still be submitted are assessed, and the arrangements for further work are discussed.
An hourly rate, a fixed fee or a combined model is used; in some cases part of the fee depends on the outcome achieved. The fee is determined by the time actually spent, the complexity of the matter and the overall timeframe of the project, and is agreed before work begins.
Describe your matter and the circumstances in which it arose. The consultation establishes the possible structure of the work and the scope of legal support required.
