For almost twenty years I have been frequently dealing with rather extraordinary disputes, including some that cannot be forgotten because of their gravity, the degree of procedural difficulty, industry and historical conditions, sudden turns of events, great emotions accompanying them, and above all, because of the people involved. They for sure can be called exciting and full-scale cases.
Without any doubt, such cases include a dispute over effectiveness of termination of a long-term contract for fuel supply, more specifically termination by a mine. For the power plant we represented this was a critical, life-and-death dispute (supplies from another source were out of the question and the lack of lignite supply would be tantamount to inability to produce electricity).
The litigation began in 2008 (still during the termination period) with our successful application for interim measures which were about requiring the mine to continue deliveries on the existing terms. However, the judgment of the court of first Instance (2009) proved devastating: the Regional Court not only dismissed our claim but also held that its very structure was defective (because it did not meet the requirements of Article 189 of the Code of Civil Procedure). This was a clear message to our client: with such lawyers, you can’t win this case.
Such a critical assessment of our skills put to the test the relationship between our Firm and the Client, built over the years, but as a result we came out stronger and ultimately more than happy. The Client endured this huge tension and did not express disappointment or lack of faith in our team even for a moment, assured us of full confidence and asked us to file an appeal and fight to the end.
The moment when the court of second instance pronounced its judgment (2010) was unforgettable: The Court of Appeal not only considered that the termination was not justified and varied the judgment by granting the claim, but also – which was very nice and heartening – went far beyond the accepted standards, stating that the structure of our claim (cascade or multi-variant one) is exemplary and shows excellent litigation skills, experience and farsightedness of the power plant’s attorneys. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court (2011).
This memory is so vivid for me because of the fact that “in the battle” we proved ourselves to be a powerful team, and the Client was with us all the time: at every stage the Client was engaged in the substance of the case, shared our sorrows and joys, and expressed the highest appreciation for our work (e.g. by holding a formal dinner with the participation of the Board).
This is the kind of memories you want to work for!
