Our Dispute Resolution team successfully represented a client, one of the largest Lithuanian companies in construction, road construction, and concrete and asphalt production, in a significant contractual dispute.
The client, along with former joint venture partners, undertook the Rail Baltica railway reconstruction project. During the project’s execution, disputes arose both with the customer and among the partners.
To address these disputes and ensure proper fulfilment of obligations, the partners entered into a deposit agreement. Under this agreement, a specified amount of money was placed in a notary’s deposit account.
Following the resolution of one court case in the client’s favor, one of the partners demanded that the court’s decision be satisfied using the funds in the notary’s deposit account. When the client refused, the partner personally fulfilled the court’s decision using their funds. Subsequently, that partner initiated legal proceedings to claim ownership of the entire amount in the notary’s deposit account. The claim sought to recognize ownership of over EUR 1.2 million in the account, as well as nearly EUR 800,000 in damages and interest from the client.
The client contested these claims. In this case, we demonstrated that the deposit agreement was not intended to secure any specific court decision. Therefore, there was no obligation to satisfy the court’s decision using the deposit account funds, and no basis for the recognition of ownership. Additionally, we established that the client had not breached the contract, negating the grounds for liability, damages, or late interest.
The court of first instance fully rejected the plaintiff’s claims. The Lithuanian Court of Appeal upheld the Vilnius District Court’s decision in favor of our client.
This outcome not only safeguarded the legitimate interests of an honest client but also contributed to the development of unified judicial practice regarding contract interpretation and the intentions of parties.
The case involved a thorough analysis of evidence, the parties’ conduct, and their communications before the dispute. This reinforced the principle that contract formation is a complex process where even the smallest details require careful attention.
Notably, we also represented the client during the contract preparation phase. This judicial process reaffirmed the effectiveness of our representation in protecting the client’s interests from the very beginning.
