Bank was denied appeal due to default status of the decision — Supreme Court disagreed

An error in the title of a court decision cannot deprive a party of the right to appeal. This conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court in the composition of the panel of judges of the Second Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Civil Court, in case No. 482/2554/24. The Supreme Court annulled the ruling of the appellate court, which returned the bank's complaint because it mistakenly considered the first instance court's decision as default.

Case circumstances

The dispute arose between a client and a bank. The plaintiff demanded the unblocking of her accounts and the resumption of financial operations, which the bank stopped after determining an unacceptably high risk for the client in accordance with the financial monitoring legislation. She also requested the collection of a penalty for delay in fulfilling obligations in the amount of 3% of 66,527.00 UAH, which was unjustifiably blocked on the current account.

The bank unilaterally stopped operations on card accounts and blocked them, referring to part one of article 15 of the Law of Ukraine "On Prevention and Counteraction to Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime, Terrorism Financing and Financing the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction" due to the determination of an unacceptably high risk following the client's reassessment.

According to the plaintiff, the blocking was carried out in violation of the procedure and deadlines prescribed by law. Repeated appeals to the bank yielded no results, and the bank did not provide proper justification for its actions, which led her to turn to the court.

In December 2025, the Novoodesky District Court of Mykolaiv region partially satisfied the claim. The court obliged the bank to unblock the accounts and collected over 202 thousand UAH in penalties.

The bank tried to appeal this decision in the appellate court. However, the Mykolaiv Appellate Court returned the appeal complaint. The court reasoned that the decision was default, and therefore the defendant had to first apply to the first instance court for a review of the default decision and only then could file an appeal.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court disagreed with the appellate court's decision.

As noted by the Supreme Court, according to part one of article 280 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, a default decision can only be made if certain conditions are simultaneously met, including proper notification of the defendant, their absence without valid reasons, failure to submit a response, and absence of objections from the plaintiff. According to article 281 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, default consideration of a case is carried out by court ruling, and the consideration and decision-making occur under general or simplified rules with regard to the special requirements of this procedure. Such a decision must include, among other things, the term and procedure for its review.

At the same time, the first instance court decision dated December 29, 2025, stated that the case was considered in an open session with the participation of the parties who did not appear. The operative part also contained general provisions regarding the terms and procedure for appeal according to articles 354–355 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court added that according to part five of article 279 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, simplified claim proceedings may be conducted without notifying the parties based on available materials if there are no relevant motions or court initiatives to hold a session with the parties summoned. At the same time, the first instance court did not make a ruling on default consideration of the case nor issued a corresponding ruling.

The Supreme Court noted that in the absence of such a procedural ruling and under conditions of simplified proceedings without following the default consideration procedure, there were no grounds to consider the decision as default. The mere indication in the text of the decision of its "default" nature does not change its legal nature if the default procedure was not actually applied.

The court pointed out that the first instance court ruling later corrected the typo and stated that the decision is not default.

Thus, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court mistakenly qualified the decision as default and unjustifiably returned the appeal complaint. Ultimately, the Supreme Court partially satisfied the bank's cassation appeal, annulled the ruling of the Mykolaiv Appellate Court, and sent the case back to the appellate court to resolve the issue of opening appellate proceedings.

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