Head of practice
Attorney. Specialist in commercial and labor law. Over 16 years of experience in legal support of businesses - debt recovery, contract enforcement, recovery of damages, commercial property and lease disputes.
Case: Debt under the service contract in the amount of over UAH 500,000 was collected
Case Summary:
Our Client is a company specializing in logistics services, particularly in international transportation, warehouse operations, and customs clearance. Under the signed service agreement, the Client undertook to provide comprehensive logistics support for the movement of goods for the Defendant — a Ukrainian electronics distributor.
Over several months, the Client provided services totaling UAH 800,000, as evidenced by route sheets, certificates of completion, delivery notes, email correspondence, and cargo movement reports. The customer paid only UAH 300,000, resulting in a debt of UAH 500,000.
Defendant’s Position:
The Defendant contested the claim, stating:
lack of their signature on some certificates;
allegedly delayed provision of part of the services (in particular, customs delays);
a formal approach to reporting without confirmation of actual cargo movement volume.
Client’s Legal Position
We substantiated the claim with the following arguments:
- Proper service provision was confirmed by:
- systemic GPS-tracking delivery reports;
- photographic evidence of loading/unloading;
- route sheets signed by third parties — drivers, warehouse operators;
- electronic certificates of completion confirmed via corporate email exchange.
- According to the Civil Code of Ukraine, a service is deemed properly rendered if the client has in fact accepted it and did not raise justified objections within the timeframe specified by the contract.
- The claims regarding delays were unsubstantiated and not supported by any evidence of contractual deadline breaches. On the contrary, the logistics chain was fully documented.
Court Decision
The Commercial Court found the Client’s claim to be well-founded and granted it in full:
UAH 500,000 of principal debt recovered; inflation losses; 3% annual interest; and court fees.
The court concluded that the logistics services had been properly rendered, and the Defendant’s position was formalistic and aimed solely at evading financial obligations.