Succeeded in a dispute over what counts as proper notice of a lawsuit
A favorable judgment was obtained to recover the debt from the principal debtor and his guarantor. More than six months later, when all deadlines for appealing the decision had expired, the guarantor filed an appeal.
In such cases, the appellate court decides whether the appeal period can be reinstated.
The guarantor referred to the fact that in the statement of claim he was referred to as an "interested person" and not as a defendant. This allegedly implied that he did not understand the essence of the case and therefore could not reasonably form his position and protect his rights.
The appeal sided with the guarantor, restored the period of appeal and overturned the decision of the first instance in the part of the claims against him.
The dispute reached the cassation, which agreed with us that there was no reason to restore the deadline for filing an appeal: the plaintiff received a copy of the claim and must have understood the essence of the claims against him, and therefore could have worked out and presented his position to the court. It does not matter whether he has the procedural status of a co-defendant or an interested person.
As a rule, courts are reluctant to overturn decisions to restore time limits for appeal. In this dispute, we not only obtained a favorable decision for the client, but also formed court practice on the issue of how certain a person's position in the process must be in order to be considered as notified.