Lessor’s Defense against Recovery of Unjust Enrichment

After the termination of an office lease, the contracting parties were in dispute over the correctness of the settlement procedure and the amount payable for the property. The lease implied a complex system of rent calculation that consisted of a fixed and variable component. While the first component had a fixed value, the second one was calculated monthly based on actual utility bills.  Once the relationship was terminated, the tenant decided that the submitted calculations were incorrect and he paid more money than he should have. He filed a claim with a commercial court seeking the recovery of more than a million rubles from our client. The task of the lawyers was:  to ‘repel’ the tenant’s claims.

The lawyers did the following:

1. The contract did not contain a specific formula for the calculation of the variable rent component or a reference to individual metering devices showing the consumption of utility services in the rented premises. The lawyers defended our client's point of view that the approach to calculating utility bills did not take into account the use of the common areas in the building.

2. Our client's calculation was fairer as it allowed to take into account the use of the common areas by the tenant's employees.

However, the court did not agree with the data submitted. The court upheld the tenant's position and satisfied his claims.

3. The lawyers filed an appeal. As a result, they managed to get the decision overturned and all claims against the owner dismissed.

The court of appeal assessed the defendant's arguments that the rent for several consecutive years was agreed upon by the parties and paid without problems on a monthly basis. That attested to the established relationship and approval of estimated payable amounts by the parties to the dispute. 

The tenant’s behavior was considered inconsistent since he approved monthly rent and paid it for years and then suddenly felt that he had overpaid the rent.