at Russian
Institute
of Modern
Arbitration
at Russian
Institute
of Modern
Arbitration
24.02.2022
02.02.2022
31.01.2022
The Parties concluded a contract for the provision of services for the carriage of goods. The Claimant (the contractor) notified the Respondent (the customer) of the arrival of the vehicles for the removal of the equipment, but on the appointed day the vehicles were not allowed to the loading area, after three days, left the place of waiting, The Claimant then applied to the RAC for a fine (penalty) for the delay (demurrage) of the vehicles and a fine (penalty) for failure to declare the goods for carriage. Considering the dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal examined (1) the correctness of the calculation of the fine (penalty) executed by the Claimant, (2) the Claimant’s grounds for recovery from the Respondent of the fine (penalty) for failure to declare the goods for carriage in the absence of the Claimant’s refusal to perform the contract of carriage under Art. 5. 10 Federal Law of 08.11.2007 259-FZ «Charter of Road Transport and Urban Ground Electric Transport», as well as (3) proportionality established by law and levied by the Plaintiff fine (penalty) for failure to declare the cargo for carriage and fines (penalty) For the delay (demurrage) of the vehicles, the consequences of the Respondent’s breach of its obligations, taking into account the factors that the Respondent asked to take into account when deciding on the reduction of fines (penalties) under Article 4. 333 Civil Code of the Russian Federation
27.01.2022
25.01.2022
10.01.2022
30.12.2021
Back in 2018, a dispute arose between the Parties regarding the term of the obligation to develop the WDD (working design documentation) shall be executed. The Arbitral Tribunal back then decided that the time limit for the Respondent's obligation execution begins to run from the moment the Claimant sends the last comment/edit to the draft of the WDD. In 2021, the Claimant again claims that though all the necessary data for the development of the WDD was provided, the Respondent's still fulfilled his obligation with a delay. The Respondent again did not consider himself guilty of missing the term of obligation execution since numerous coordinating organizations (not a party to the contract) were sending additional comments to the draft or untimely provided information. The Arbitral Tribunal agreed with the Respondent, noting that, though the coordinating organizations are not parties to the contract, the Respondent still could not ignore them due to their role in the Parties' legal relations.
29.12.2021
29.12.2021
The law firm filed a claim for the recovery of $70,000 in arrears for legal services rendered to represent the Respondent’s interests in the LCIA. Under the contract, the Claimant’s remuneration was limited to the amount of $25,000, but due to the Defendant’s refusal of the contract, this limitation ceased to apply, according to the Claimant. The Respondent objected to the poor quality of the services provided by the Claimant: failed to challenge the jurisdiction of the LCIA or to suspend the process, proposed an inappropriate expert candidate. Having assessed the arguments of the Parties and the work done by the Claimant, the Arbitral Tribunal disagreed with the Respondent’s arguments, as the Claimant had not promised to achieve certain results in the course of the work and in the Arbitrator’s opinion it was practically impossible to achieve them. However, the Claimant’s claims were satisfied subject to a contractual fee limit, as otherwise the agreement of the Parties would be meaningless and would create legal uncertainty for the Respondent.
17.12.2021
