The Supreme Court explained when the plaintiff does not pay for the defendant's lawyer

The Supreme Court considered the cassation appeal of the Agricultural Limited Liability Company in case No. 290/248/22 regarding the refusal to reimburse costs for professional legal assistance after the claim was left without consideration.

Case circumstances

In March 2022, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Agricultural Limited Liability Company to declare invalid a land lease agreement for an area of 2.0784 hectares, concluded on November 10, 2018, between the parties. The claims were based on doubts about the validity of the transaction and the authenticity of the plaintiff's signature on the disputed agreement.

During the case review, the court of first instance took procedural measures to clarify the circumstances of the dispute. In particular, the original land lease agreement was requested and a forensic handwriting examination was appointed. The expert opinion received in 2023 did not provide a definitive answer regarding the signature, stating that it was likely made by the plaintiff.

Due to the need for additional investigation, the court resumed proceedings and in 2024 appointed a repeated forensic handwriting examination. The conclusion obtained in 2025 also did not contain categorical confirmation or denial of the signature's authenticity, citing insufficient samples for a definitive conclusion.

After completing these procedural actions and prolonged consideration, on May 29, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion to leave the claim without consideration, which the court of first instance granted.

In this regard, the Agricultural Limited Liability Company applied to the court for reimbursement of costs for professional legal assistance, citing the significant duration of the case, the expert examinations conducted, and, in its opinion, the unfounded nature of the claims. However, the courts of first and appellate instances denied this request, after which the case was appealed in cassation.

Supreme Court decision

When reviewing the case within the arguments of the cassation appeal, the Supreme Court proceeded from the fact that the right of a person to apply to the court for protection of their rights is guaranteed by Article 16 of the Civil Code of Ukraine, and according to part 3 of Article 13 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a party manages its procedural rights at its own discretion.

The court noted that civil procedural legislation explicitly provides the plaintiff the right to file a motion to leave the claim without consideration before the case is heard on the merits. In such a case, the court issues the corresponding ruling, and this procedural action is one of the lawful forms of terminating the case without a decision on the merits. At the same time, the court is not obliged to verify the reasons why the plaintiff decided to exercise this right.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the mere filing of a motion to leave the claim without consideration cannot be considered an unjustified action by the plaintiff. Such a motion is the exercise of a procedural right provided by law and contains no restrictions regarding the reasons or motives for its submission.

Assessing the defendant's arguments about the need to reimburse costs for professional legal assistance, the Court noted that part five of Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine indeed provides for the possibility of compensating the defendant's costs in case of termination of proceedings or leaving the claim without consideration. However, such compensation is allowed only if one mandatory condition is met — proving the plaintiff's unjustified actions.

The Supreme Court stressed that the burden of proof of such circumstances lies with the defendant. To recover costs, it is insufficient to refer to the fact that the claim was ultimately not considered on the merits or that the proceedings lasted a long time. The defendant must prove which specific actions of the plaintiff were unjustified, what their bad faith consisted of, and how they affected the course of the case.

The court separately explained that the concept of "unjustified actions of the plaintiff" is not identical to the concept of an "unfounded claim." The mere fact of filing a claim that was later not considered or did not lead to satisfaction of the claims does not indicate unlawful behavior of the person. To apply Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, specific manifestations of bad faith behavior must be established, in particular filing a knowingly groundless claim, systematic obstruction of the case consideration, abuse of procedural rights, intentional delay of the process, or other actions aimed at infringing the rights and interests of the other party.

The court noted that to recover costs, the defendant must prove which specific unjustified actions the plaintiff committed during the case and what they consisted of. In particular, whether the plaintiff acted in bad faith and filed an unfounded claim, systematically opposed the proper and prompt resolution of the dispute; whether the bad faith plaintiff had an unlawful purpose — to infringe the rights and interests of the defendant.

As a result, the Court concluded that there are no legal grounds for compensating the defendant's costs, since the case did not prove unjustified actions of the plaintiff, and the mere leaving of the claim without consideration is not such proof.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.