The performance from year to year

Objective

Although the case did not fall under business law, we took up the assignment, because we thought that it would be complex and interesting. Due to a mistake in construction, a church clergy house extended several square meters on to an adjoining land plot. The plot’s owner requested that the court recognize the building as an unauthorized construction and order to pull it down. The court of first instance supported the claim. The client set the task to keep the house and obtain the court judgment rejecting the claim. 

Resolution

The complexity of the case was aggravated by the fact that we had not participated in the first instance proceedings and the very tight deadlines we were faced with. In the first instance the church recognized that the building partially extended on to an adjacent land plot. However, case materials did not present any evidence as to what part of the plot was occupied, whether or not it was possible to partially demolish the building, or whether the court judgment would be proportional to the breach committed. The case materials did not contain proper reference to the options of peaceful settlement offered to the claimant by the church, such as a transfer of a part of its land to the claimant or purchase the mistakenly occupied land at market price. During the appeal instance, we managed to persuade the court to include the evidence of obvious disproportion between the order issued by the first instance court and the damage caused. 

Result

The church clergy house was kept intact. The appeal court reversed the judgment of the first instance court and refused to support the claim to demolish the building. The appeal court ruling was further supported by the cassation court.