Successful Case
Victory in the Supreme Court: Over UAH 5 million recovered in favor of the client
The Supreme Court upheld the legal position of LESHCHENKO & PARTNERS in a complex commercial dispute over the lease of specialized construction equipment.
Attorneys Oleksandr Leshchenko and Iryna Smityukh, in cooperation with the team from Dexter Law Firm, successfully defended the interests of their client — a lessor of construction equipment — in all judicial instances, including the cassation stage.
Case Summary
After the lease agreement expired, the lessee failed to return the equipment, continued using it at construction sites without any legal grounds, and ceased paying rent. The legal team ensured comprehensive support throughout the case, including preparation of the evidentiary base, financial damage calculations, and strategic representation in court.
Court Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the rulings of the lower courts, which:
-
Ordered the lessee to return the equipment to the lessor;
-
Recovered over UAH 1,000,000 in unpaid rent, penalties, inflation adjustments, and 3% annual interest;
-
Additionally recovered UAH 4,400,000 as a penalty — calculated as double the rent for the unlawful use of the equipment after the contract had expired.
This case exemplifies the effective application of Parts 1 and 2 of Article 785 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, which stipulate that a lessee must immediately return leased property upon termination of the agreement.
The courts found that the lessee had failed to fulfill their obligation to return the vehicles promptly after the lease ended, and had unjustifiably retained them for an extended period. As a result, under Article 785 of the Civil Code, the court ordered a penalty of UAH 4,400,000, equal to double the rent for post-contractual use.
The penalty provided for in Part 2 of Article 785 carries a special legal regime, reflecting the lessee’s monetary obligation to return the leased property upon the lease’s expiration.
The full text of the court decision is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions (Case No. 910/8009/24).
“This case is about consistency, perseverance, and principle. We consistently upheld our client’s position in all court instances, defending their property rights and securing fair compensation”
