The court ruled in our client’s favor – compensation for services provided was awarded

Our client, whose employees have many years of experience in the construction sector, assisted a well-known construction company in Lithuania (the opponent) in entering one of the largest construction projects in the country and securing an order worth nearly one hundred million euros.

In the commercial representation agreement concluded between the parties, it was agreed that once the contract was signed with the project’s customer, our client would be entitled to remuneration (a success fee) calculated from the amounts received by the opponent for the project works.

Shortly after the opponent began receiving payments from the project client, it stopped providing information about these payments and started raising claims against our client, alleging that the services had been improperly rendered or not rendered at all, and denying our client’s contribution to securing the order.

When our firm’s client brought a claim before the court seeking remuneration, the opponent filed a counterclaim seeking termination of the commercial representation agreement. Retrospectively assessing the opponent’s behavior from the day the contract was signed with the client, it became clear that the opponent never intended to settle accounts with the client fairly, but only to take advantage of the highly qualified and high-value-added services provided by the client and create an artificial basis for not fulfilling its contractual obligations.

Our dispute resolution lawyers have safeguarded our client’s interests against a dishonest counterparty: the court of first instance fully upheld our client’s claim and dismissed the opponent’s counterclaim. Still, this victory resolved only a part of the broader dispute – construction works are still ongoing, and the compensation awarded to our client covers only the past period. Therefore, if the opponent continues to refuse to perform the contract voluntarily, our client will be forced to return to court to claim remuneration for subsequent periods.

One of the biggest challenges in this case was that, when filing the claim, our client did not even possess the evidence required to substantiate the amount sought, since the opponent had long been withholding this information, despite being contractually obliged to provide it.

So, first of all, we convinced the court to demand information about the payments received by the opponent from the client, and only based on the evidence received could the client specify the amount of compensation requested. Since the opponent denied the fact of the services provided by the client, it was also necessary to prove that the client provided the services as specified in the commercial representation agreement.

The outcome of the case fully met our client’s expectations and laid a solid foundation for the potential future dispute over remuneration for later periods.