Preclusive Facts in Disputes with Regional Energy Companies: The Supreme Court Explained Whether the Contractor Can Claim Incompleteness of Already Confirmed Data

LLC filed a lawsuit against JSC "Khmelnytskoblenergo" demanding the transfer of initial data stipulated by the contract – planning and cartographic materials, founding documents, title documents for land and real estate, as well as materials regarding plot boundaries and restrictions. This was reported by the Northwestern Appellate Commercial Court.

In response, JSC "Khmelnytskoblenergo" filed a counterclaim to recognize the parties' obligations terminated as of November 18, 2023. The company argued that in October 2023 it transferred 50% of the advance payment to the contractor within enforcement proceedings and had already provided the initial data in March. However, LLC did not complete the work. Since the contract term expired on June 30, 2019, and was not extended, the customer believes there are no grounds for the contractor to retain funds or for the contract to remain valid.

The first instance commercial court satisfied the original claim, reasoning that enforcement of the contract is possible only if there is a clear obligation that the party evades. In this case, the parties' obligations, including JSC "Khmelnytskoblenergo"'s duty to provide initial data, are preclusive (already proven earlier) and have both contractual and legal grounds under the Law of Ukraine "On Land Management." The court rejected the energy company’s claim about data transfer by letter dated 24.03.2023, since the work deadline expired on 30.06.2019, and providing information with a multi-year delay does not constitute proper performance. This delay was recorded in case No. 924/949/16 filed by LLC against JSC "Khmelnytskoblenergo," which blocked the start of work and violated the contractor’s rights. The mere expiration of the contract term does not terminate the customer’s obligation or eliminate the violation committed. The obligation of JSC "Khmelnytskoblenergo" to transfer initial data exists. Proper performance of this obligation within the contract term did not occur. The local commercial court denied the counterclaim.

By its ruling dated 09.04.2026 in case No. 924/822/25, the Northwestern Appellate Commercial Court overturned the first instance court’s decision to satisfy the original claim and issued a new decision refusing the claim. The rest of the decision remained unchanged.

In refusing the original claim, the court concluded that JSC "Khmelnytskoblenergo" fully fulfilled its obligations. The court found that by letter dated 24.03.2023, the customer provided LLC with all available initial data: founding documents, extract from the Unified State Register, charter, balance certificate, and a list of plots on 36 pages. The appellate court recognized this fact as preclusive, as it was definitively confirmed by the Supreme Court in its ruling dated 29.01.2025 in case No. 924/498/23. The contractor’s arguments about incomplete information were rejected. Considering also the conclusion of the decision in case No. 924/949/16, the appellate court emphasized that under the contract, a significant portion of graphic and title materials was to be provided by the customer only if actually available. Therefore, JSC "Khmelnytskoblenergo"'s obligation was limited to transferring all available initial data to the contractor, and the absence of certain documents on the customer’s part alone cannot indicate a breach of contract terms. Since the energy company provided all documents it possessed, its obligation is considered properly fulfilled.

Additionally, the appellate court noted that the parties fundamentally interpret differently the scope and list of information to be transferred under the contract. Since the contract has not been performed for a long time and the technical assignment lacks proper specification, only the parties themselves can remedy this imperfection by making amendments, not the court. Under such circumstances, forced enforcement of contract terms is an ineffective remedy. Moreover, enforcing such a court decision would be inherently difficult or impossible, violating Articles 18 and 326 of the Commercial Procedural Code of Ukraine.

The Supreme Court supported the position of the Northwestern Appellate Commercial Court, motivating its ruling by the fact that JSC "Khmelnytskoblenergo" transferred all available initial data back in March 2023, and this fact was officially established within case No. 924/949/16, gaining the status of preclusion.

Furthermore, the court critically assessed the contractor’s arguments about the alleged incomplete transfer of documents. LLC in its claim failed to specify exactly which materials it lacked and how their absence hindered the work. Due to this vagueness, the court was unable to determine the scope of unfulfilled obligations. Moreover, the appellate court clearly demonstrated that the energy company provided information within the exhaustive list approved by the initial court decision, so the customer’s obligations are considered fully and properly fulfilled.

The Supreme Court also rejected the contractor’s arguments regarding contract details and case law. First, the simplified reproduction of contract terms in the appellate court’s ruling text is not a substitution of its content, and the complainant did not prove that this affected the legality of the decision. Second, LLC’s references to prior case law stating that the expiration of the contract term does not terminate obligations were irrelevant, since in this case, the appellate court denied the claim not because the contract expired, but because the energy company had already effectively transferred all documents.

The Supreme Court also emphasized the ineffectiveness of the chosen remedy. Since the parties have interpreted the scope of required information differently for years, judicial enforcement of abstract contract terms would not lead to a real result. The complainant failed to refute the appellate court’s conclusion that without mutual specification of the technical assignment, satisfying such a claim is impossible.

The full text of the Supreme Court ruling in the composition of the Commercial Cassation Court dated 17.06.2026 in case No. 924/822/25 can be found at this link.

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.