An interesting
Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated 21.01.2026 in case No. A40-80713/2025 was recently issued.
The client demanded that the contractor pay a penalty for delays in adjusting the design documentation.
The court examined the circumstances in detail and fully dismissed the claim, ruling in favor of the contractor.
Why?
1. Activity confirmed by documentation.
The contractor repeatedly requested in writing from the client the source data and expert review results necessary for the work, confirming good-faith performance of its obligations.
2. Use of all reasonable measures.
Having received no response from the client, the contractor attempted to obtain the data directly through Glavgosexpertiza (the Main State Expert Review Office).
The court regarded this as evidence of an attempt to perform the contract despite the obstacles.
3. Financial good faith. The contractor not only returned the advance payment received but also voluntarily paid part of the penalty, thereby demonstrating a willingness to bear responsibility for obligations where it was at fault.
4. Expert substantiation of the impossibility of performing the work. A court-ordered construction and technical forensic examination confirmed that the absence of source data from the client made it impossible to perform the work in accordance with the contract.
This precedent shows:
For a contractor, the best defense is detailed and continuous correspondence with the client on all matters requiring the client's involvement.
For clients, it serves as a reminder of the obligation to assist the contractor.
Delaying the provision of information disrupts the project schedule and forfeits the ability to recover a penalty.
The court protects the party that acted reasonably, in good faith, and took all possible measures to perform the contract.
