Unnecessary lawsuit. A story from legal practice

Unnecessary lawsuit. A story from legal practice.


The client and I - are in a car belonging to his organization.

The car is parked in front of the courthouse.

Two organizations were in a court confrontation. Due to the complexity of the dispute, the common dispute was divided into several (possibly several dozen) formally independent court cases. In some cases, the plaintiff was the opposing organization, in other cases, the plaintiff was the organization whose director was the person talking to me in the car.

In twenty minutes, the case will be heard, where "our" organization is the plaintiff.

This lawsuit (this case) was of secondary or tertiary (auxiliary) importance. - It was potentially useful - provided that we received a positive decision.

However, based on a number of signs, I felt that our lawsuit would be rejected.

This negative decision could be appealed to higher authorities. The prospects for a final positive decision were quite real.

But other cases were being considered at the same time, and a negative decision would have created an unpleasant background for the progress of other cases. In addition, filing appeals to higher court authorities (at that particular moment) would have been an unnecessary distraction of time and attention.

The Arbitration Procedural Code of that time allowed the plaintiff not to arrive at the court hearing and to receive a special court act on leaving the lawsuit without consideration.

This procedural rule was based on the constitutional principle according to which a court resolves disputes between parties (sides of a dispute). If a party did not arrive (did not appear at the court hearing) and did not file a motion with the court to postpone the consideration of the case, then, consequently, there is no dispute.

And if there is no dispute, then there is no decision.

A ruling (a special court act) is made to leave the lawsuit without consideration.

I suggested to the client not to arrive (not to appear) at the court hearing. For me, this was not a very good option - if to look at the external side. I received a salary from the client, I prepared the lawsuit, and now I suggest not to arrive (not to appear) at the court hearing in the expectation that the court will leave the claim without consideration.

In addition, there was a non-zero probability that in our absence, despite our absence, the court would consider the case on the merits and dismiss the lawsuit (i.e., would issue a negative decision - negative one for us). In such a case, the situation would have been especially very unpleasant: I prepared the lawsuit, I sent it to the court, I involved the client in this case, I suggested to the client not to go to the court hearing, based on my calculations. And - such a scenario!).

The lawsuit was paid with a special court payment. The amount of this special court payment was relatively small. This payment would not have been returned to us - if the party failed to appear at the hearing.

I outlined all my considerations to the client and suggested that he make a decision. He said that he relied on my opinion. I said that I preferred to take a risk - that is, not to go to the hearing, hoping to receive a ruling to leave the claim without consideration. In that situation, this was the most preferable scenario for us.

The case was postponed to another date (due to our absence). The second time, we also did not appear at the hearing. As a result (after the second failure of our party to appear), the court issued a ruling to leave the lawsuit without consideration.

After some time, when I was no longer involved in legal matters, I learned from the media that an amendment to the Arbitration Procedure Code (APC) had been adopted, which prompted a court to make a decision (to resolve the dispute on the merits) even if the party filing the claim did not appear at a court hearing.

Having heard about this amendment, I did not clarify the wording, I simply chuckled.

And now - when writing this text - I did not clarify anything (I am making an adjustment for my age and for a need to save health and mental energy). But, when I come across information about the overload of courts (and about the advisability of "freeing courts from excessive workload" by expanding the ability of some government agencies to write off financial means from citizens' accounts - without going to court), I feel an inner conviction within me: probably, even now courts (in some cases) are encouraged by procedural legislation to consider a claim, even if the plaintiff fails to appear at the court hearing.

If this conviction of mine does not correspond to reality, and if I misheard the news about the introduction of the above-mentioned amendment to the APC, then let (only) a story about a specific case from my legal practice will remain.

Then I will stop smiling internally, and will be simply looking philosophically at a modern reality.


July 19, 2025 08:26


Translation from Russian into English: July 19, 2025 10:17
Владимир Владимирович Залесский “ Не нужный иск. Рассказ о случае из юридической практики. ”.


{3709. Не нужный иск. Рассказ о случае из юридической практики. - 19 июля 2025 г.
MMMDCLXXX. Unnecessary lawsuit. A story from legal practice. - July 19, 2025.

Vladimir Zalessky Internet-bibliotheca. Интернет-библиотека Владимира Залесского}


[MMCDIX. The Devil’s Advocate. Autobiographical drawing. – October 6, 2021.
MMDLXXXII. A monologue of a jealous driver in the presence of a lawyer. A story from the practice of participating in litigation. - December 13, 2021.
MMMLXXXIII. A brief memoirs about Rostov legal journalism of the late nineties – the beginning of the two thousandths (Bulletins «Tax Expert», "Litigation" ...). - July 29, 2022.
MMMCX. The paradox of a precaution. A story from the practice of participating in litigation. - August 21, 2022.
MMMCXXIX. The violation of the constitutional right of ownership and of the constitutional right to petition. A diary legal note. - September 2, 2022.
MMMCDLXVIII. A Solomon's verdict. An essay on the history of the formation in Russia the State governed by the rule of law. - March 20, 2024.
MMMCDLXIX. A useful skill - the ability to write protocols. A story about a case from a legal practice. - March 22, 2024.
MMMCDLXXXI. A useful professional overload. A story about legal activity. - April 16, 2024.
MMMCDXCII. Man squatting. The story from the legal practice. - May 18, 2024.
MMMDXXXII. A Touchy (Huffy) Specialist in Law. A story from legal practice. - August 23, 2024.
MMMDCLIV. A world filled with lilacs. A story. - April 30, 2025.
MMMDCLXI. A trust and a possibility to sell (in the activities of journalists and lawyers). An essay. - May 17, 2025.
MMMDCLXIX. Assistant in the layout of the bulletin. A story. - June 13, 2025.]