An attorney who has built an entire career around litigation and the enforcement of court judgments writing an article under this title is, admittedly, an unexpected move. What prompted it was the practice of recent years.
Below are several of these cases. The conclusions are left to the reader.
Kuwaiti IT Company: Substandard Work and Missed Deadlines
The Dispute
A Kuwaiti company hired a Ukrainian company to develop a mobile app and a website for managing a gym. Before signing the contract, the Ukrainian developers confirmed they had the capacity to complete the project in full and on schedule.
A year into the project, the Ukrainian side reported that it could not connect its code to the client's database. The website also remained unfinished. By that point, the delivery was already six months overdue. When the client asked for a refund, the contractor declined under various pretexts.
Litigation Prospects
The paperwork on both sides was largely in order. Two contracts covering the two projects contained all the essential terms required for agreements of this kind. There were, however, gaps. Payment had come not from the client company's account but from the director's personal account, and part of the payment had gone to a third party rather than to the contractor directly. This created real risk in proving payment before a Ukrainian commercial court.
Out-of-Court Resolution
The Kuwaiti client had a clear sense of what a fair outcome looked like. He acknowledged that the Ukrainian side had completed a meaningful portion of the work — by his estimate, around 75 percent — but was frustrated by the contractor's silence and the missed deadlines.
Attorney Dmytro Chuguienko prepared a settlement proposal that laid out the full history of the dispute, the legal grounds for a potential claim, and the client's position on a fair amount of compensation. Rather than framing it as a formal demand letter — the customary approach before filing suit — the document was drafted as a proposal, setting a constructive tone for negotiations.
The Ukrainian company responded quickly, and its director reached out directly to counsel. Together with the director and the firm's legal team, the parties discussed possible terms, noting where the Ukrainian side agreed and where it did not, along with its own comments and reservations on a settlement. The Ukrainian director then contacted his Kuwaiti counterpart directly. They agreed on a somewhat reduced compensation amount, with the Ukrainian side providing all project materials and support to the new development team to speed up completion. While the full cost of the website was reimbursed, the contractor handed over the source code and all related materials at no charge, as a gesture of goodwill for the cooperation.
Outcome
The client received fair compensation and all the materials needed to continue the project. The contractor preserved its reputation. One fewer case in court.
Ukraine: Wrongful Withholding of Construction Scaffolding
The Dispute
A landowner hired a site foreman to oversee the construction of a residential house. The foreman signed a rental agreement for scaffolding worth 150,000 hryvnias with a rental company. Acting in bad faith, the foreman failed to complete the work he had been assigned and disappeared.
The rental company asked the landowner to return the scaffolding, explaining that the foreman owed unpaid rent and could not be reached. The landowner refused, arguing that until the foreman finished the work he had already been paid for, there was no basis to release the equipment.
Litigation Prospects
The legal position was straightforward: a claim for the recovery of property from unlawful possession. The documentation — the rental agreement and payment records — was in order. Litigation, however, would have taken months, if not years.
Out-of-Court Resolution
Attorney Dmytro Chuguienko prepared a formal demand letter, gathered information about the landowner, and sent it by both email and post.
Outcome
After receiving a well-substantiated demand from a reputable law firm, the landowner contacted the client directly and agreed to return the scaffolding. The client was not obligated to answer for the foreman's unpaid debts to the landowner and recovered his property.
South Korea: Dispute Between Former Business Partners
The Dispute
Two former business partners had a falling out that left one partner holding tokens and digital assets belonging to the other, stored in a digital wallet.
The client sought the return of:
- 90% of the purchased tokens;
- 100% of the digital assets held in the digital wallet.
Litigation Prospects
To encourage the former partner toward a settlement, it was important to set out the litigation prospects and the legal strategy available to protect the client's interests. One available remedy was a claim for unjust enrichment, covering funds and property — including cryptocurrency — recoverable from either the individual or the company's accounts.
Counsel held evidence of payments totaling 559,000 US dollars made over the course of a year with no underlying legal basis:
- 337,000 US dollars in cryptocurrency;
- 108,000 US dollars to a personal account;
- 41,000 US dollars to a corporate account;
- 73,000 US dollars over several months.
Should the other party decline to engage in settlement talks or ignore the proposal, the client was prepared to file suit for recovery of the 41,000 US dollars paid to the legal entity and the 518,000 US dollars paid to the individual, along with legal costs, court fees, and damages.
Out-of-Court Resolution
Counsel sent a demand letter with the following language:
Please direct your position on resolving this dispute in response to this proposal.
Given that you and the client have been unable to resolve this dispute on your own, I propose negotiations aimed at restoring communication, identifying each side's genuine interests, and satisfying those interests in a way that works for everyone involved.
If no agreement is reached, this dispute will be resolved by a court under Ukrainian law. You are therefore under no obligation to admit any facts, dispute them, or produce any evidence during this pre-trial process.
The settlement process will be guided by the following principles:
- Voluntary participation;
- Confidentiality;
- Genuine intent to resolve the conflict;
- Impartiality of the mediator.
Outcome
Negotiations continued over several months and concluded with an agreement on mutually acceptable terms.
Israel: Non-Delivery of Equipment and Refusal to Refund Payment
The Dispute
In April, a seller and an Israeli buyer entered into a supply contract. Under its terms, the seller was to deliver the goods within eight weeks of receiving a 50% advance payment of 150,000 euros.
The buyer paid 42,000 euros as agreed, but the seller failed to deliver the goods, triggering daily penalty accruals under the contract. By November, the accumulated penalty reached 106,000 euros, bringing the seller's total debt to 148,000 euros.
Litigation Prospects
If the debt was not settled within seven days of receiving a formal demand, the buyer intended to file a claim with the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Ukrainian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for recovery of 144,000 euros, plus court costs and legal fees. Litigation costs were expected to run at least 10,000 euros, with no guarantee of a swift decision.
A ruling in the buyer's favor was highly likely, but the odds of actually collecting the judgment were slim — the debtor company was preparing for bankruptcy.
Out-of-Court Resolution
A formal demand was sent to the debtor, opening negotiations that were deliberately kept free of the client's emotional involvement. After several months, the debtor agreed to repay the 42,000-euro advance in installments.
The settlement agreement provided that, as long as no payment was delayed by more than three business days, penalties would be capped at 10,000 euros. Missing or underpaying any installment would automatically terminate the agreement on the fourth business day after the missed payment.
Outcome
The debtor voluntarily repaid the debt according to the schedule set out in the settlement agreement.
Nigeria: IT Specialist Left Unpaid
The Dispute
An IT specialist from Nigeria was not paid 930 US dollars owed to him by a Ukrainian company, due to payment difficulties originating in Ukraine and other circumstances tied to the full-scale invasion. The company effectively stopped communicating with him.
Litigation Prospects
No written contract existed between the parties, ruling out any judicial remedy.
Out-of-Court Resolution
A demand letter was sent to the employer's associate on UpWork, reading as follows:
Hello. My name is Dmytro Chuguienko, and I am an attorney and managing partner at Disputes Law Firm.
Our firm is representing a citizen of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in recovering unpaid wages of 930 US dollars.
Our client has informed us that you are associated with his employer on UpWork, and that, according to you, his wages remain unpaid due to payment difficulties originating from Ukraine and other related circumstances.
We have repeatedly assisted foreign clients in transferring funds outside Ukraine and have sufficient international payment channels available for this purpose.
We invite you to take part in resolving this matter out of court, through negotiation, to find the most appropriate solution.
We look forward to prompt contact and a swift resolution.
Outcome
Within a day of receiving this letter, the employer paid the client's outstanding wages in full.
Ukrainian Citizen: Unable to Return from Tajikistan After Losing His Passport, Facing Obstruction from the Embassy
The Dispute
The client stated that he had repeatedly contacted the Embassy of Ukraine in the Republic of Tajikistan and the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, asking for assistance returning to Ukraine after losing his passport. Each time, he was verbally turned away for various reasons. His last visit to the Embassy was in December 2021, when he was told his documents were under review, but he received no written confirmation that he had even filed a request. He remained in a state of legal limbo, unable to return to Ukraine.
Litigation Prospects
There were no litigation prospects, since the client held no formal refusal or written explanation from the Embassy. The only available avenue was to challenge the Embassy's unlawful actions and inaction before the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Out-of-Court Resolution
An attorney's formal inquiry was sent to the Embassy, reading as follows:
I am writing to request your assistance in facilitating the return to Ukraine of a Ukrainian citizen, and to ask that you identify the steps required for this return.
I THEREFORE REQUEST THAT YOU:
- Assist the Ukrainian citizen in returning to Ukraine.
- Clarify what obstacles currently prevent his return and what actions he needs to take.
- Schedule an official appointment for the Ukrainian citizen with the competent consular officials to process a temporary travel document for return to Ukraine.
Outcome
A few days after receiving the inquiry, the Embassy summoned the client and issued him a travel document for his return to Ukraine.
The Advantages of Out-of-Court Dispute Resolution
The Obvious Drawbacks of Litigation
The standard drawbacks of litigation have been deliberately left out of the discussion above, since they are apparent even to those with no connection to the justice system:
- Significant strain on relationships and near-inevitable escalation of the conflict;
- The length of court proceedings;
- Difficulty enforcing a judgment once obtained;
- Uncertainty of outcome for both sides;
- Court costs;
- Reputational exposure and publicity.
What Does It Take to Bring Parties to a Settlement?
- Calm: Removing the emotional element;
- Respect: Mutual respect between the parties;
- Focus on interests: Attention to underlying interests rather than stated demands;
- A mediator: Bringing in a neutral party to guide the negotiation.
In Place of a Conclusion
Ukrainians — individuals and businesses alike — are increasingly choosing to resolve disputes out of court, a trend that reflects a shift toward European and American standards of dispute resolution and a higher degree of legal sophistication.
