Can attorney's fees be recovered if the plaintiff withdrew the claim — to be decided by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court will consider a case in which it must establish a unified approach to the allocation of court costs after the plaintiff withdraws the claim. The court must answer whether the mere fact of withdrawal is sufficient for the defendant to be reimbursed for expenses, or if it is additionally necessary to prove the plaintiff's unjustified actions. The future conclusion will affect the further practice of applying the relevant provisions of civil and commercial procedural law.

Circumstances of the case

The dispute arose around a non-residential premises with an area of almost 489 sq. m in the Cherkasy region.

The original plaintiff claimed to be the lawful owner of the property based on a 2006 sale agreement. According to her, in 2019, part of the premises measuring 181.8 sq. m was alienated without her consent, after which the defendant acquired this property. Because of this, she filed a lawsuit demanding the recovery of the property from unlawful possession by another.

In response, the defendant filed a counterclaim. She insisted that the disputed premises belonged to another person on lawful grounds, therefore she requested to invalidate the sale agreement, cancel the plaintiff's ownership registration, and recognize her ownership rights.

During the proceedings, the original plaintiff died, and her successor entered the process.

Decisions of lower courts

In March 2025, the Kaniv City District Court of Cherkasy region dismissed the original claim due to the repeated absence of the plaintiff's successor and his representative at court hearings without notifying the reasons. The Cherkasy Court of Appeal agreed with this decision.

After that, the defendant withdrew the counterclaim. The court of first instance closed the proceedings on the counterclaims and awarded the plaintiff's successor 65,000 UAH for legal assistance costs. At the same time, the claim for costs in favor of the defendant under the original claim was denied due to the failure to prove the plaintiff's unjustified actions.

The appellate court overturned the decision to recover 65,000 UAH for legal assistance and denied compensation, stating that the party requesting such costs did not prove the bad faith or unjustified actions of the plaintiff under the counterclaim.

Why the case reached the Grand Chamber

Although the original dispute concerned ownership rights to non-residential premises, the case reached the Grand Chamber not because of real estate issues. The subject of the upcoming review is actually a procedural question regarding the allocation of legal costs after withdrawal of the claim.

During cassation review, an issue arose regarding the application of Article 142 of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Part three of this article provides the defendant the right to reimbursement of costs if the plaintiff withdraws the claim. Meanwhile, part five of Article 142 regulates compensation of costs in case of termination of proceedings or dismissal of the claim due to unjustified actions of the plaintiff.

The Cassation Civil Court noted that in its ruling dated September 5, 2022, the Supreme Court had already expressed the approach that in case of withdrawal of the claim, the defendant has the right to compensation regardless of proving the plaintiff's unjustified actions.

At the same time, the Cassation Commercial Court in its ruling dated July 31, 2025, in case No. 904/5087/22, proceeded from the fact that the defendant's right to compensation arises under part three of Article 130 of the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, but the procedure for exercising this right should be determined taking into account part five of this article. The Cassation Civil Court considers this approach requires revision.

Therefore, the Cassation Civil Court referred the case to the Grand Chamber for consideration to resolve the issue of possible deviation from the legal conclusion of the Cassation Commercial Court and to form a unified judicial practice.

What the Grand Chamber decided at this stage

The Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that the arguments presented in the Cassation Civil Court's ruling are sufficient to accept the case for consideration. The court noted the need to form a unified approach to applying procedural law norms regarding the allocation of court costs in cases of withdrawal of the claim.

By ruling in case No. 697/1266/20, the Grand Chamber accepted the case for its proceedings and scheduled it for consideration in written procedure without summoning the parties. The hearing is planned for June 10, 2026.

The future conclusion of the Grand Chamber will be significant for a large number of court disputes as it will determine the procedure for reimbursing legal assistance costs and other court expenses in cases where the plaintiff withdraws their claims.

Essentially, the Grand Chamber must answer whether the mere fact of withdrawal is sufficient for awarding costs to the defendant, or if the latter must additionally prove the plaintiff's unjustified actions. This will affect the further unity of judicial practice in civil and commercial proceedings.

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