The company's lawyers successfully collected penalties in favor of a construction company for breaching the contract completion deadlines in full. Also, they proved the impossibility of applying Article 333 of the Russian Federation Civil Code (RF CC).

The client's activities encompass dozens of constructed and under-construction properties across various real estate segments: industrial, retail, administrative, residential buildings, health complexes, country houses, and cottages.

In this project, the company's lawyers filed a lawsuit against the contractor demanding the collection of penalties for violating the contract completion deadlines. The client tasked the lawyers with achieving the full collection of these penalties and avoiding a reduction in the penalty amount as per Article 333 of the RF CC.

The lawyers successfully demonstrated that the significant delay in work was caused solely by the defendant's culpable actions. The court found the defendant's excuses, such as delays in workfront handover, non-payment by the general contractor, and lack of advance payments, unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's plea to apply Article 333 of the RF CC, agreeing with the plaintiff's argument that the defendant failed to prove the disproportionality of the claimed penalty amount to the consequences of the breach.

Despite consistent judicial practice where courts actively apply Article 333 of the RF CC upon a party's request, in this case, the lawyers achieved all set objectives - full collection of the penalties for contract completion delays and proving the inapplicability of Article 333 of the RF CC to the demands in this dispute.

This project is of core importance for the client's business, as the client professionally undertakes construction. Inadequate fulfillment of contractual obligations by subcontractors leads to adverse consequences for the client, such as financial losses, penalty sanctions, and potential deterioration of relationships with counterparts. Such a dispute serves as a preventative measure and fulfills a stimulative function to prevent non-fulfillment or inadequate fulfillment of contractual obligations by subcontractors.