We continue our series of articles that address various legal issues of interest to our clients, using examples from court practice. One of the consistently relevant topics concerns disputes arising after the acceptance of services and work results — specifically, situations where a CCW has already been signed without comments or objections.
It is also common for a client to fail to submit objections to the CCW within the prescribed period, resulting in the CCW being deemed accepted pursuant to the contract.
Another example is when, after fulfilling the contractual obligations, the customer signs the CCW without objections. However, it may later become evident in both situations that the work was performed improperly or not performed at all. Nevertheless, regardless of contractual terms, the customer may, in certain cases, challenge the results of the work.
According to Article 630 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the general rule is that even after the customer signs the certificate of acceptance, they retain the right to raise claims in court regarding defects that were not apparent (hidden defects), including issues relating to the quality, volume, and price of the work or services provided.
In particular, among other grounds, the following situations may be challenged (the list is not exhaustive; we highlight the most common cases seen in practice):
The volume of work recorded in the CCW does not correspond to what was actually performed.
* The work was completed, but some time after the CCW was signed, it became clear that the quality did not meet the contractual requirements.
* Hidden defects were discovered over time that were not visible at the moment the CCW was signed.
Thus, in certain cases, the customer may challenge the CCW in court and request that it be declared invalid.
For example, in one court case, the customer (hereinafter, the “Customer”) filed a claim against the contractor (hereinafter, the “Contractor”) seeking to invalidate a CCW signed by both parties on the grounds that an audit revealed:
The first-instance court rejected the Customer’s claim.
The appellate court modified the lower court’s decision and granted the claim, declaring the CCW invalid.
However, the appellate ruling was subsequently appealed, and the case was referred to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “Supreme Court”).
After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court emphasised that the decision of the appellate court was lawful, as it correctly concluded that the Contractor failed to provide evidence of performing the contractual work. In particular:
The court also validly took into account that, according to the Price Information Certificate issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the service costs were overstated.
This case confirms that a signed CCW does not prevent it from being declared invalid and does not preclude establishing the fact of non-performance or improper performance of the work or services.
Nevertheless, each case requires an individual assessment to determine the appropriate grounds. Our team of lawyers can find the optimal solution for such matters, applying a personalised approach to every situation.
Kind regards,
Redbrick Law Firm
It is also common for a client to fail to submit objections to the CCW within the prescribed period, resulting in the CCW being deemed accepted pursuant to the contract.
Another example is when, after fulfilling the contractual obligations, the customer signs the CCW without objections. However, it may later become evident in both situations that the work was performed improperly or not performed at all. Nevertheless, regardless of contractual terms, the customer may, in certain cases, challenge the results of the work.
According to Article 630 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the general rule is that even after the customer signs the certificate of acceptance, they retain the right to raise claims in court regarding defects that were not apparent (hidden defects), including issues relating to the quality, volume, and price of the work or services provided.
In particular, among other grounds, the following situations may be challenged (the list is not exhaustive; we highlight the most common cases seen in practice):
The volume of work recorded in the CCW does not correspond to what was actually performed.
* The work was completed, but some time after the CCW was signed, it became clear that the quality did not meet the contractual requirements.
* Hidden defects were discovered over time that were not visible at the moment the CCW was signed.
Thus, in certain cases, the customer may challenge the CCW in court and request that it be declared invalid.
For example, in one court case, the customer (hereinafter, the “Customer”) filed a claim against the contractor (hereinafter, the “Contractor”) seeking to invalidate a CCW signed by both parties on the grounds that an audit revealed:
- the absence of actual work performed by the Contractor,
- lack of the required permits for such work, and
- overpricing of services.
The first-instance court rejected the Customer’s claim.
The appellate court modified the lower court’s decision and granted the claim, declaring the CCW invalid.
However, the appellate ruling was subsequently appealed, and the case was referred to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter, the “Supreme Court”).
After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court emphasised that the decision of the appellate court was lawful, as it correctly concluded that the Contractor failed to provide evidence of performing the contractual work. In particular:
- No evidence was submitted confirming the performance of the work under the contract.
- The Contractor did not have the necessary permit required by the contract for performing the work.
- No documents were submitted confirming that the Contractor even applied for the permit.
The court also validly took into account that, according to the Price Information Certificate issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the service costs were overstated.
This case confirms that a signed CCW does not prevent it from being declared invalid and does not preclude establishing the fact of non-performance or improper performance of the work or services.
Nevertheless, each case requires an individual assessment to determine the appropriate grounds. Our team of lawyers can find the optimal solution for such matters, applying a personalised approach to every situation.
Kind regards,
Redbrick Law Firm