Arbitration Practice

The C Cases team analyzed the defendant's legal position on each of the stated grounds and developed a comprehensive system of counterarguments for the appellate court.

• Preclusion (Part 2, Article 69 of the Commercial Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). The defendant's obligation to pay for electricity supplied to the disputed property had been previously established by a court act that entered into force. These circumstances did not require re-proving and precluded the defendant from denying its status as an obligated party.
• Validity of the billing meter. Meter No. 33026114 was commissioned in 2018 in the prescribed manner and included in Appendix No. 2 to the energy supply agreement without dispute — by the defendant itself. Arguments regarding the lack of proper technological connection were refuted by inspection reports drawn up with the participation of the grid organization and third parties.
• Principle of estoppel (Subparagraphs 3-4, Article 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). The energy supply agreement was concluded at the defendant's own initiative, in the version proposed by the defendant, including terms regarding payment procedures and the meters used. Adopting a contradictory position when payment demands are made constituted bad faith conduct, not subject to judicial protection.
• Independence of the payment obligation. Arguments regarding lack of access to the electrical panel room, improper conduct of third parties, and disputes over property management fall outside the scope of the dispute and do not affect the obligation to pay for the actually consumed resource.