The effective actions of DSK’s investment team protected our clients, the company providing investor supervision services, as well as the person acting as Contract Engineer, from paying the amount of almost PLN 7 million claimed in court.
The plaintiff, an international company operating in the construction industry, derived its claim from the contract between it and the contracting authority for the execution of a public procurement, concerning the expansion of National Road No. 8. The defendant company, represented by DSK, under the contract concluded with the contracting authority, the duty to supervise the execution of works under the investment in question.
The functions of investor supervision inspectors on the investment in question were performed by the employees designated by the defendant company, while the function of Contract Engineer was performed by the second defendant represented by the Law Firm.
The principal issue to be decided in the present case was whether the plaintiff’s performance of the work of erecting the sheet piling fell within the scope of its obligation under the main construction contract. In addition to the demand for payment for the completed works addressed to the contracting authority, the plaintiff also argued that the investor’s supervision itself, both the Contract Engineer personally and the company performing the supervision under contract with the contracting authority, was responsible for the it’s loss.
DSK’s lawyers, after a careful analysis of the formal and legal circumstances firstly applied for the dismissal of the claim and, in the absence of the Court granting the above request, applied for the dismissal of the claim against them, with an award of legal costs.
In the justification, we argued that there are no premises for liability for damages on the part of the person who is the Contract Engineer or the company performing investor’s supervision.In particular, there is a lack of unlawfulness and fault on the part of these entities, and no connection between the plaintiff’s damage and the actions of our clients. The Firm’s principals performed their contractual obligations towards the contracting authority, and often even its guidelines.
In addition, it was argued that the plaintiff lacked standing due to the fact that it entered into the contract for the implementation of the investment in question as part of a consortium, acting as its Leader. Consequently, the filing of a lawsuit independently by only one consortium member, justified in our opinion the rejection of the lawsuit.
We also pointed out that at no stage of the correspondence with the contractor did the defendant company confirm that the work indicated by the contractor as additional and necessary to be performed, would be treated as additional and that payment would be made for it – DSK experts explain.
After analyzing the factual circumstances and considering the positions of the parties the court ruled that in relation to the defendant (the contracting authority) the claim turned out to be justified almost in its entirety, while it is completely unjustified in relation to the other defendants (our clients). The court weighed the lack of an adequate causal link between the damage to the plaintiff’s assets and the actions of the defendants (the law firm’s clients) in the performance of the contract. Thus, it held that not only the company, as the provider of investor supervision services, is not liable in the present dispute, but also the second plaintiff, an individual acting as Contract Engineer, is not responsible for the damage caused to the plaintiff.
Due to the fact that the claim against our clients was dismissed, the court obliged the plaintiff to reimburse the costs of legal representation at a triple rate. This process was very complex and lengthy. It required a strong commitment on the part of attorneys both by analyzing the complex facts, preparing properly argued positions, and attending hearings in different parts of the country. Thanks to the experience of our specialists, both lawyers and engineers, it was a complete success.