1. The subject of the dispute is the appeal of the court’s ruling on the refusal to reinstate the term for filing an application for review of the default judgment and the dismissal of this application without consideration.
2. The court of cassation upheld the decisions of the courts of previous instances, which refused the defendant to reinstate the term for filing an application for review of the default judgment. The court noted that each party bears the risk associated with the commission or non-commission of procedural actions by it. Also, the court indicated that the reasons for missing the deadline for appealing to the court may be considered valid if they objectively make it impossible or difficult to perform procedural actions within the period specified by law, arose independently of the will of the person and are confirmed by appropriate evidence. The court agreed with the conclusions of the courts of previous instances that the legal ignorance of the party and the stay of its lawyer on vacation are not valid reasons for reinstating the missed deadline. In addition, the court took into account that the defendant was not deprived of the opportunity to contact another specialist for legal assistance. The Court noted that it departs from the conclusions formulated in its постанові (resolution) of November 09, 2021 in case No. 214/5505/16.
3. The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal, and the decisions of the courts of the first and appellate instances remained unchanged.
