Results we have achieved for our clients
USD 49,000+ and EUR 3,000+ Recovered Under Loan Agreements
This case was handled by Ukrainian lawyer Mykyta Chubenko, who specializes in debt collection and business law — including contract disputes, creditor protection, and the enforcement of court judgments.
Get a Free Consultation
Your request will be reviewed by the lawyer who handles your type of case and followed up via email — no intermediaries.
A lawyer will contact you during business hours (Mon–Fri, 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM Kyiv time (GMT+2 / GMT+3 in summer)
The dispute arose from a private borrower's failure to repay funds advanced under a series of written loan agreements. Under the terms of those agreements, the lender provided substantial sums in US dollars and euros bearing interest at 7% per month, with fixed repayment dates evidenced by signed promissory notes.
When the repayment deadlines passed without payment, the borrower became unresponsive and made no attempt to settle the debt. With no prospect of an out-of-court resolution, the client instructed counsel to bring proceedings to recover the outstanding amounts.
When the repayment deadlines passed without payment, the borrower became unresponsive and made no attempt to settle the debt. With no prospect of an out-of-court resolution, the client instructed counsel to bring proceedings to recover the outstanding amounts.
How the case was built
Several loan agreements were entered into between private individuals, evidenced by written promissory notes. Under these agreements, the borrower received significant sums in US dollars and euros for business purposes, at an agreed interest rate of 7% per month, and undertook to repay them by agreed dates. When the repayment deadlines arrived, the obligations went unmet. Initially, the debtor repeatedly delayed repayment with various excuses, then eventually stopped responding altogether. With no realistic prospect of resolving the matter out of court, the decision was made to pursue a claim for debt recovery through the courts.
The legal strategy rested on the fact that the transfer of funds, the amounts involved, and the repayment obligation were all properly evidenced by written promissory notes drawn up and signed by the debtor. The documents left no ambiguity as to either the amount owed or the existence of the obligations between the parties.
A key challenge, however, was the interest rate itself. At 7% per month, there was a real risk the court might treat the agreed rate as unconscionable and reduce or disallow it entirely. The attorney addressed this by demonstrating that the rate had been freely negotiated between the parties, was clearly set out in the written agreements, and that the debtor had raised no objection to it at the time of signing. The court accepted these arguments and enforced the full contractual terms.
The legal strategy rested on the fact that the transfer of funds, the amounts involved, and the repayment obligation were all properly evidenced by written promissory notes drawn up and signed by the debtor. The documents left no ambiguity as to either the amount owed or the existence of the obligations between the parties.
A key challenge, however, was the interest rate itself. At 7% per month, there was a real risk the court might treat the agreed rate as unconscionable and reduce or disallow it entirely. The attorney addressed this by demonstrating that the rate had been freely negotiated between the parties, was clearly set out in the written agreements, and that the debtor had raised no objection to it at the time of signing. The court accepted these arguments and enforced the full contractual terms.
Court hearings
Immediately after filing the claim, the attorney took steps to ensure the future judgment could actually be enforced. Given the size of the debt and the debtor's conduct, there was a real risk that the debtor might dispose of assets upon learning a claim had been filed.
To prevent this, an application was made to the court for an interim injunction freezing the defendant's assets. The court accepted the claimant's arguments and granted the freezing order, preserving the debtor's assets for future enforcement. The full text of the ruling is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.
Throughout the proceedings, the attorney provided full representation — filing all necessary documents and attending every hearing. The defendant, by contrast, failed to appear in court on any occasion, did not file a defence, and provided no evidence or submissions to challenge the claim.
To prevent this, an application was made to the court for an interim injunction freezing the defendant's assets. The court accepted the claimant's arguments and granted the freezing order, preserving the debtor's assets for future enforcement. The full text of the ruling is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.
Throughout the proceedings, the attorney provided full representation — filing all necessary documents and attending every hearing. The defendant, by contrast, failed to appear in court on any occasion, did not file a defence, and provided no evidence or submissions to challenge the claim.
Procedural risks and how it was addressed
The primary risk in this case was the possibility that the debtor might dispose of assets before a judgment was handed down. Without the freezing order, even a favourable ruling could have made actual recovery difficult or impossible. This is why securing interim relief at the outset was the cornerstone of the litigation strategy. Freezing the defendant's assets eliminated the risk of dissipation and laid the groundwork for enforcement.
The result
The Boryspil City and District Court of Kyiv Region entered a default judgment in the claimant's favour in full. The court ordered recovery of the following amounts:
The judgment has entered into force and is enforceable under Ukrainian enforcement proceedings law. The full text is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.
- Under the loan agreement of 1 October 2017: EUR 934.03 and USD 11,247.33
- Under the loan agreement of 1 December 2017: EUR 2,352.65 and USD 23,779.17
- Under the loan agreement of 15 March 2018: USD 5,076.84
- Under the loan agreement of 15 June 2018: USD 8,952.80
The judgment has entered into force and is enforceable under Ukrainian enforcement proceedings law. The full text is available in the Unified State Register of Court Decisions.