We developed a comprehensive defense strategy, relying on the following key aspects:

• Identifying the source of the problem and the guilty party:

The neighbor tried to place all the responsibility on our client, referring to an expert opinion. However, this opinion only assumed that water might have seeped from our client’s terrace, without providing concrete evidence of his fault. We proved that even if water did penetrate from the terrace, this was not the result of any wrongful actions by our client or his builders. In fact, the problem was due to shortcomings made by the developer during the handover of the building. Our client purchased the apartment in a "white frame" condition, with the terrace and drainage system already completed. It turned out the developer had made serious mistakes in waterproofing and the slope of the balconies, which led to water accumulation and its penetration into the apartments. Notably, other neighbors in the same building had similar problems, clearly indicating a systemic defect rather than an isolated case caused by our client. It is worth noting that our client, despite having no fault, spent about 150,000 GEL at his own expense to completely redo the terrace and balconies to prevent any future issues.

• Expert examination as mandatory evidence in damage recovery cases:

To thoroughly determine the causes of the latest leaks, we initiated an independent examination at the Levan Samkharauli National Forensics Bureau. This expert bureau is the only one whose opinion is unconditionally taken into account by the courts. Here, any type of examination can be ordered — from construction to medical. However, due to the bureau’s high workload, waiting for an expert and their conclusion can be lengthy, even when paying for an expedited appointment.


• Restoration of rights vs abuse of rights:

The neighbor complained about dirt on the balcony -small stains on some of the floor tiles. Our client expressed full readiness to ensure these elements were cleaned. A specialized cleaning company was hired, which conducted a trial cleaning that showed positive results. The company prepared a detailed plan of work to put everything in order. However, the plaintiff systematically obstructed the performance of this work. He refused to agree on the arrival time of the cleaning crew, made rather unusual demands (for example, to pay for the travel of his representative from abroad to supervise the cleaning), repeatedly requested information about cleaning chemicals and methods that had already been provided, and then simply refused to allow the work to proceed. Such behavior convincingly indicated a deliberate strategy to keep the "damage" unresolved in order to subsequently seek monetary compensation for a full replacement, which, of course, was a significantly larger amount. In our view, such actions of the plaintiff pointed not to a desire to restore a violated right, but to an abuse of the situation.

• "Lost profit": how to prove validity and amount:

One of the most disputed claims of the plaintiff was the "lost profit" from not renting out the apartment -the plaintiff claimed that he could not do this because of barely visible stains on the terrace floor tiles. The defendant’s objections were based on the fact that the plaintiff had actually been living in this apartment with his family since the moment of its purchase. His own statements, police reports, and the testimony of the repair crew confirmed his constant presence in the apartment, making the "lost profit" claims untenable. Moreover, the plaintiff did not provide a single document that would even indirectly confirm his intention to rent out the apartment: no advertisements, no contracts with agents, no registration in the economic activity register. We referred to the established practice of the Supreme Court of Georgia, which clearly states that a simple expert opinion on rental value is insufficient if the plaintiff’s intention to rent out the property is not confirmed by objective evidence. This is a key point in damage recovery claims.