1. The subject of the dispute is the recovery of UAH 16 million in debt under a contract for the procurement of contract work, which, according to the plaintiff, was performed but not paid for by the defendant.
2. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances because the courts did not fully investigate the circumstances of the case, in particular, whether the work was performed in accordance with the project documentation and whether this work had already been paid for in another court case; the courts did not properly assess the defendant’s arguments and shifted the burden of proof to him, effectively applying the concept of “negative proof”; and also unreasonably overturned the ruling of the court of first instance on the appointment of an additional construction and technical expertise, which could help to clarify important circumstances. The court noted that the courts had no right to consider proven a circumstance asserted by a party without its proper proof that would satisfy the standard of preponderance of the evidence.
3. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of the previous instances and sent the case for a new trial to the court of first instance.
