Proof of building charges and set-off for courtyard road expenses

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.