Let us not review this case as separate case in this review, but nevertheless briefly cite it as an example of qualifying a case/dispute as a “maritime” one, and in principle, as a dispute.

Facts: Atlas Marine Co. Ltd. acted as an intermediary in the implementation of ship repair works by contractors, delivery of ship supplies, food and ship spare parts, as well as bunkering of fuel and lubricants pursuant to an agency agreement with LLC “PrimPortService”. Atlas Marine Co. Ltd. rendered services for the repair of the refrigerated transport vessel “Odin”, the shipowner of which was LLC “PrimPortService”, and the delivery of ship supplies. These circumstances were confirmed by the signed Acts of Completion, on the basis of which invoices were issued. The shipowner did not pay in full within the timeframes set by the agreements.

A Reconciliation Act was signed between the parties, according to which the debt amounted to 671,413.28 US dollars.

Subsequently, the parties entered into another agency agreement and an additional agreement to it, in which they agreed on the amount of debt of 671,413.28 US dollars, which LLC “PrimPortService” undertook to repay Atlas Marine Co. Ltd.

Since no payment had been made, Atlas Marine Co. Ltd. went to court. LLC “PrimPortService” referred to the expiry of the time bar, that the supplementary agreement was signed by an unauthorized person, that agency agreements were signed by an unauthorized person – the master of the vessel.

Ruling of the court: the Commercial Court of Primorsky Region rejected all arguments of LLC “PrimPortService” and recovered in favor of Atlas Marine Co. Ltd. the amount of debt, sanctions and state duty (total in rubles more than 56 million (approximately USD 750,000))

The court indicated that the time bar should be calculated from the moment of conclusion of the agency agreement and annexes thereto in 2018 (where the amount of debt was agreed upon), and not on the basis of previously concluded agency agreements (in 2015 and 2016) or the reconciliation act (2017). The court concluded that the three-year time bar applied.

The court rejected the argument that the supplementary agreement with the agreed amount of the debt was signed by an unauthorized person, since the latter was certified by the corporate seal of the defendant, the claimant did not argue that the corporate seal had been lost. The argument of LLC “PrimPortService” that all agency agreements and annexes thereto were signed by unauthorized persons was also rejected by the court, since the documents were signed by the ship’s master, whose authority was evident from the circumstances.

Commentary: this case appears to be an example of a category of cases that overloaded the judicial system. It is noteworthy that in developed legal systems, for example, the United States, lawyers can be fined and, potentially, suspended from practice for such objections to the response to a claim (frivolous defense).

Probably, PrimPortService LLC stated other arguments to substantiate why it is not worth paying for the repair of the transport reefer vessel “Odin”. It can be assumed that such arguments were even more odious than the argument about the authority to sign agency agreements, because the court limited itself to an extremely laconic assessment and indicated (literally, sic!) – “Other arguments have no legal meaning when considering this dispute”. ■