In brief: how the case ended
The Moscow Commercial Court awarded RUB 3,294,000 in damages against PJSC MOEK in favour of the Kurchatovskoye homeowners’ association. The judgment in case A40-193776/2021 was upheld on appeal and cassation. MOEK’s subsequent attempt to reopen the judgment on newly discovered circumstances was also rejected at three levels. The court proceedings are complete; the chronology and all six official court decisions in PDF are provided below.
This is a practical B2B case about claiming property damage from a utility company. It is particularly relevant to homeowners’ associations, property managers, owners of commercial premises and businesses whose property is damaged by an accident or works on heating, water or other utility networks. It is not a general guide for a homeowner after a domestic leak and does not guarantee the same result in another dispute.
Background to the dispute
According to the published decisions, basement premises in a Moscow apartment building on Marshal Novikov Street were flooded during heavy rain on 28 June 2021. PJSC MOEK was carrying out works on heating networks near the building; the case materials described open excavations and exposed pipe sections.
A joint inspection report recorded the affected premises, the water level and the probable route by which water entered. The courts assessed this report together with the remaining evidence and found a causal link between the condition of the works area and the damage to the association’s property. MOEK disputed the claim but did not displace the combined evidence accepted by the courts.
The event
The date and consequences of the flooding were recorded in a joint inspection report.
Area of responsibility
The courts examined MOEK’s heating-network works and the condition of the excavations.
Causation
The decisive issue was not water alone, but the proven route from the works area to the damaged premises.
Amount of loss
The RUB 3,294,000 claim was allowed on the evidence of this particular case.
Procedural history
| Date | Court | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 27 Dec 2021 | Moscow Commercial Court | Claim allowed in full: RUB 3,294,000 in damages |
| 23 Mar 2022 | Ninth Commercial Court of Appeal | Judgment upheld |
| 21 Jul 2022 | Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit | Cassation appeal dismissed |
| 25 May 2022 | Moscow Commercial Court | Application to reopen the judgment refused |
| 14 Oct 2022 | Ninth Commercial Court of Appeal | Refusal to reopen upheld |
| 18 Jan 2023 | Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit | Cassation appeal against the refusal dismissed |
The dates in the two procedural tracks overlap because the reopening application was filed while review of the main judgment was still under way. The chronology should therefore be read as the principal damages claim and a separate reopening dispute.
Why evidence of causation was decisive
It was not enough to show that property was damaged while a utility company happened to be working nearby. The claimant had to connect the specific event, the defendant’s conduct, the route of the water and the amount claimed. The courts assessed the evidential record as a whole rather than relying on a single document.
- the joint inspection report describing the premises, water level and probable cause;
- records showing the location and nature of the heating-network works;
- evidence concerning waterproofing and possible alternative causes;
- documents proving ownership of the damaged property and the amount of loss;
- photographs, correspondence, emergency-service records and other material reconstructing the sequence of events.
In the reopening proceedings MOEK relied on information about repairs to basement access pits and the storage of property in the basement. The courts held that those matters did not justify reopening: they did not displace the causation findings already made and did not meet the test for newly discovered circumstances.
What this case does not establish automatically
- Utility works near a building do not by themselves establish liability.
- RUB 3,294,000 is a fact of this case, not a benchmark for valuing another loss.
- The decisions establish the outcome of the litigation, but do not prove when or whether payment was actually received.
- The result depended on the inspection records, the condition of the property, alternative causes and the evidence of loss in this particular case.
Documents for a comparable B2B property-damage claim
- 1Record the event. Prepare an inspection report, take photographs and video, and preserve emergency-service requests and messages.
- 2Identify the source and works area. Obtain network plans, works records, allocation-of-responsibility documents and contractor details.
- 3Address alternative causes. Check waterproofing, internal systems, access pits and the prior condition of the premises.
- 4Prove the loss. Assemble estimates, contracts, invoices, acceptance records and, where appropriate, expert evidence.
- 5Connect the evidence. The pre-action demand and claim should show a continuous chain from the defendant’s conduct to the particular property damage.
Court decisions in case A40-193776/2021
The links open official PDFs in Russia’s Commercial Case File. The decisions are in Russian.
- Moscow Commercial Court judgment, 27 December 2021
- Ninth Commercial Court of Appeal decision, 23 March 2022
- Moscow Circuit cassation decision, 21 July 2022
- Refusal to reopen the judgment, 25 May 2022
- Appeal decision in the reopening proceedings, 14 October 2022
- Cassation decision in the reopening proceedings, 18 January 2023
Frequently asked questions
Who were the parties?
The claimant was the Kurchatovskoye homeowners’ association and the defendant was PJSC MOEK. The case card also lists Gazprom Energoholding LLC among the defendants, while the monetary claim and operative findings were directed at MOEK.
What was the outcome of the principal claim?
The first-instance court allowed RUB 3,294,000 in damages. The appeal and cassation courts upheld that judgment.
Why did proceedings continue after the main judgment?
MOEK separately sought to reopen the judgment on newly discovered circumstances. Reopening was refused, and that refusal survived appeal and cassation.
Can a homeowner rely on this case after an apartment leak?
It is useful as an illustration of causation evidence, but it was a commercial case involving a homeowners’ association and heating-network works. A domestic apartment leak requires a different analysis of parties and responsibility.
Is an inspection report enough?
Usually not. Evidence should also establish the source, responsibility for the relevant system or works, the amount of loss and the causal link between conduct and damage.
Related materials
- Apartment flooding in Russia: evidence, liability and recovery
- Procedural joinder when one leak damages several apartments
Need to assess a claim against a utility company?
Before sending a demand, it is useful to test the source of the damage, allocation of responsibility, evidence of causation and calculation of loss. That review separates legally significant facts from assumptions and helps define the appropriate litigation strategy.