Electricity billing dispute
Defeated RUB 8.43 million of an electricity supplier’s claim
PJSC Krasnoyarskenergosbyt sought RUB 10,341,697.76 from Krasnoyarsk Yeast Plant. The supplier’s calculation assumed that the equipment operated around the clock. Evidence of the plant’s actual working schedule was submitted to the court. The court awarded RUB 1,907,755.81 in principal and rejected the remainder of the principal claim.
Background
CJSC Krasnoyarsk Yeast Plant (ЗАО «Красноярский дрожжевой завод») received electricity under a supply agreement with PJSC Krasnoyarskenergosbyt (ПАО «Красноярскэнергосбыт»).
An inspection on 11 April 2017 found that the verification intervals for current transformers within the plant’s metering systems had expired. This provided grounds for determining electricity consumption using a calculation method.
The supplier sought RUB 10,341,697.76 for the period from 9 September 2016 to 30 April 2017. Its calculation assumed that the equipment operated 24 hours a day.
The plant disputed the amount: its internal documents supported a five-day working week and an eight-hour working day.
Our task
Defend the plant against the amount claimed without regard to its documented working schedule and secure judicial scrutiny of the operating hours used in the supplier’s calculation.
How the Work Proceeded
What We Did
- 01
Challenged the assumption of 24-hour operation. The plant argued that the calculation should reflect its actual working hours.
- 02
Submitted documentary support for recalculation. Order No. 227 dated 1 April 2010 was placed before the court. It set working hours from Monday to Friday, 08:00 to 17:00, with a one-hour lunch break. Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays were non-working days.
- 03
Supported the use of internal records to establish the working schedule. The supply agreement did not specify the site’s operating hours. The court held that this did not prevent the defendant from proving those hours through other evidence.
- 04
Secured review of the amount using actual working hours and days. At the court’s request, the claimant submitted a revised calculation of RUB 1,907,755.81. The court accepted it as correct.
What made the difference
The decisive issue was the input used in the calculation, rather than the fact that the transformers’ verification intervals had expired.
The court accepted the grounds for using a calculation method but did not accept that the number of hours necessarily had to be 24 per day in this case. The plant’s working-hours order supported its position. The claimant supplied no evidence of a different number of equipment operating hours.
The court therefore used the calculation reflecting the documented working hours and days of the plant.
The result in figures
- Principal amount claimed — RUB 10,341,697.76
- Principal awarded by the court — RUB 1,907,755.81
- Portion of the principal claim rejected — RUB 8,433,941.95
- Reduction compared with the principal amount claimed — 81.55%
- Court fees payable by the client to the claimant — RUB 13,782
- Total ordered to be paid by the client under the judgment — RUB 1,921,537.81
Result
The court awarded RUB 1,907,755.81 instead of the RUB 10,341,697.76 claimed
On 20 December 2017, the Commercial Court of Krasnoyarsk Krai upheld the claim in part in case No. А33-14885/2017. It awarded RUB 1,907,755.81 in principal instead of the RUB 10,341,697.76 claimed.
The defense secured rejection of RUB 8,433,941.95 of the principal claim. This reduced the amount the client was ordered to pay; it was not a monetary award in the client’s favor.
Who represented the client
Nikolay Nemkov represented Krasnoyarsk Yeast Plant at the hearing.
The judgment identifies him as Nemkov N.V., the defendant’s representative acting under a power of attorney dated 20 June 2017.
Another dispute involving this client
We also represented Krasnoyarsk Yeast Plant in a dispute over the cadastral value of its land.
That was a separate case concerning a different issue.
Reducing the land’s cadastral value by almost RUB 4.6 million →Court document
Judgment of the Commercial Court of Krasnoyarsk Krai dated 20 December 2017 in case No. А33-14885/2017.
This case study describes a first-instance judgment. The supplied document does not establish any subsequent appeal outcome or enforcement.
Read the judgment — PDF, 7 pages, in RussianClient
CJSC Krasnoyarsk Yeast Plant (ЗАО «Красноярский дрожжевой завод»)
Client’s role
Defendant
Claimant
PJSC Krasnoyarskenergosbyt (ПАО «Красноярскэнергосбыт»)
Dispute
Recovery of electricity supply debt
Court
Commercial Court of Krasnoyarsk Krai, a Russian state court
Case number
А33-14885/2017
Judgment date
20 December 2017
Operative part announced
18 December 2017
Claim period
9 September 2016–30 April 2017
Outcome
Claim upheld in part
Client’s representative
Nikolay Nemkov, identified as Nemkov N.V. in the judgment
Why this case matters to businesses
Even where the basis for calculated electricity charges is established, the amount claimed requires separate scrutiny. In this case, the outcome turned on the number of hours used in the calculation and the documents supporting the plant’s working schedule.
A similar dispute calls for a comparison of the contract, inspection reports, supplier’s calculation and records of the site’s operation. The court’s conclusions in this judgment relate to the specific facts established in this case.
Practice Areas
Practices Related to This Case
Managing Partner, Konsultant Law Firm
Nikolay Nemkov
Disputing an additional electricity charge?
We will review the contract, inspection reports, supplier’s calculation and records of your business’s working schedule. We will assess the basis for the charge and identify which amounts and calculation inputs can be challenged.
Have the contract, inspection reports and additional charge calculation ready for the discussion.