Attorneys of WinnerLex proved in court the groundlessness of more than UAH 300,000 forfeit accrual by the State Property Fund.

One of the types of economic disputes with state authorities, in which WinnerLex successfully protects the interests of clients, are disputes with the State Property Fund. Including disputes on debt collection under state property lease agreements.

The regional branch of the Fund applied to the economic court with a claim for the recovery of rent payments, and also asked to recover from our client a penalty in the amount of more than UAH 300,000 as the amount of double rent for allegedly untimely return of the object.

The client did indeed have a rent arrears. But after studying the materials of the case, it was decided to fight the Fund against the claims for the recovery of the debt for the penalty.

The Fund motivated its claims for recovery of the debt for the forfeit in this economic dispute by the fact that a letter was sent to our client about the termination of the real estate lease agreement. But our client did not fulfill these requirements and did not return the property on time.

Nevertheless, attorneys of WinnerLex proved in court that the Fund sent a letter on termination of the lease agreement to our client during consideration in the economic court of another claim of the Fund on termination of the same agreement. During the consideration of the case on termination of the contract, the Fund did not notify the court that it had sent a letter of termination of the contract to our client. Therefore, the lease agreement was terminated precisely by a court decision after the Fund sent a letter, which means that the agreement should be considered terminated precisely from the moment the relevant court decision entered into force. In addition, a few months after the letter of termination of the agreement was sent, at the initiative of the Fund, changes were made to the lease agreement like it was in force. Attorneys of WinnerLex pointed out the bad faith of such behavior of the State Property Fund.

As a result of consideration of this economic dispute, the court agreed with the arguments of the attorneys of WinnerLex regarding the groundlessness of the claims of the State Property Fund for the recovery of debt in penalty and the bad faith of the latter’s behavior. In particular, the court noted that “having filed a claim in case No. 910 / … / 21, the plaintiff, in the process of considering the said case and before making a decision in it, sent the defendant a notice of withdrawal from the contract out of court, which cannot be regarded as good faith behavior, since the refusal of the contract and the termination of the contract have different grounds and legal consequences”.

The claims of the Fund to our client for the recovery of a penalty in the amount of more than 300 thousand UAH were rejected by the court in full, and the client was more than satisfied with the results of our work on this business dispute.