Refunding an advance payment

Not automatically. A photographer or venue may sometimes keep the entire advance payment — and even demand more — but there must be a legal basis. A statement that “advance payments are non-refundable” does not settle the issue by itself.

The case law shows that the decisive factors are:

• why the wedding was cancelled: your withdrawal and the provider's breach have different consequences;
• what was agreed before payment: an advance payment, earnest money and a cancellation fee are different things;
• how much notice was given and whether the same date was sold to another customer;
• which costs were avoided and what payment claim actually remained.

Photographer and venue: different starting points

Photographer

If the photographer was to photograph the wedding and deliver the agreed photographs, the agreement can generally be classified as a contract for services aimed at a particular result. The customer may terminate it at any time, but the photographer may remain entitled to the agreed fee minus saved costs and income earned, or reasonably obtainable, from substitute work. The claim is therefore not necessarily limited to expenditure already incurred: some of the anticipated earnings may remain payable. Legal basis: VÕS § 635(1) and § 655(1). Law of Obligations Act.

If termination was caused by the photographer's breach of contract, the same rule preserving the fee does not apply. Following valid withdrawal for a fundamental breach, an advance payment can be reclaimed, taking account of services already received where necessary. Legal basis: VÕS § 655(2), § 116(1) and § 189(1)–(3). Law of Obligations Act.

Venue

An agreement solely to provide premises for use is usually a lease. If the premises were available at the agreed time but you cancelled the event, the obligation to pay rent may remain. However, the landlord's savings and benefits from other use of the premises must be taken into account. Where the contract has validly ended, the law provides for the return of rent paid in advance for the period after termination. Legal basis: VÕS § 296(3) and § 337. Law of Obligations Act.

If the venue also provided catering, accommodation and organisation, those obligations must be assessed separately. The continuing obligation to pay for the hall does not, by itself, mean that all unprepared food and unprovided additional services remain payable.

Is a “non-refundable advance payment” clause valid?

A term prepared by the business must have become part of the contract: it must generally be brought to the customer's attention before or when the contract is concluded, with an opportunity to read it. An unreasonably high compensation clause or a one-sided consumer term allowing money to be retained may be void. Signing the contract does not prevent review of standard terms. Legal basis: VÕS § 35(1)–(2), § 37(1), and § 42(1) and (3)(5) and (30). Law of Obligations Act.

Earnest money may remain with the recipient if the contract is not performed through the payer's fault, but an ordinary advance payment does not automatically become earnest money. For a valid contractual penalty, the actual loss need not equal the penalty; an unreasonable penalty may be reduced subject to the statutory conditions. Legal basis: VÕS §§ 156–157, § 161(1) and § 162(1) and (3). Law of Obligations Act.

What do the court decisions show?

The following are ten relevant cases. Not all concern wedding cancellations: some explain the same principles governing advance payments, termination and cancellation terms in other services. No directly comparable photographer cancellation dispute was found among the court decisions reviewed.

1. Cancelling an event left the advance payment with the venue and required an additional payment

In Tallinn Circuit Court's judgment of 25 March 2021, 2-18-12928, an organiser cancelled a festival about a month and a half before it was due to take place. The disagreement concerned staff responsibility for complaints about seating. The court found that the concert venue had not breached its agreed obligations. The €600 advance payment was not returned, and the obligation to pay a further €10,080 and €766.63 in late-payment interest, plus continuing interest, was upheld.

The contract required payment of the full rent where less than three months' notice was given, and a new tenant could not be found at such short notice. This shows that cancellation by the customer can cost more than the advance payment. However, this was a contract between businesses: for a couple acting as consumers, the fairness of the term must also be reviewed. Paragraphs 7–10 and 14 are relevant.

2. A wedding venue could not unilaterally increase the agreed fee

In Viru County Court's judgment of 8 September 2016, 2-15-113272, emails agreed a €60 hall fee for a wedding, but the venue later demanded €500. The wedding took place, and the dispute concerned the final bill. The court rejected the €440 additional claim and awarded only €0.50 outstanding on another part of the bill. The appeal was refused permission to proceed by the order of 21 November 2016, 2-15-113272.

The court found that neither an agreement on the higher fee nor a separate booking fee had been proved. For your question, this means that a provider cannot invent a new fee or non-refund rule after cancellation. The relevant reasoning appears on pages 8–10 of the judgment; the paragraphs in that part are not numbered.

3. Withdrawal by the customer differs from withdrawal because of the provider's breach

In the Supreme Court's judgment of 21 September 2011, 3-2-1-64-11, a customer terminated a construction contract, but the parties disputed whether the reason was the contractor's fundamental breach. The Supreme Court left the case to be reconsidered because the basis for termination had not been sufficiently examined. Subsequently, the judgment of 8 April 2013, 2-08-639, upheld an award to the contractor of €73,231.12 and €19,362.59 in late-payment interest, plus continuing interest.

The Supreme Court distinguished two situations: valid withdrawal entails restitution, whereas ordinary termination by the customer preserves the agreed payment claim subject to deductions. If the wedding was cancelled by your decision, that cannot be treated as a breach by the photographer. The relevant Supreme Court paragraphs are 11–13.

4. Work already performed must be considered even where the provider was in breach

In the Supreme Court's judgment of 5 June 2013, 3-2-1-59-13, a contractor claimed €29,545.90 for construction work performed. The customer had terminated the contract because of defects and unfinished work. The lower courts rejected the payment claim, but the Supreme Court remitted the case. The dispute ended in a settlement approved on 13 November 2013, under which the customer had to pay €24,773. 2-11-26939.

The Supreme Court explained that a contractor's breach does not automatically exclude a claim for work already performed. Wedding services therefore require a distinction between an unprovided service and a separate service actually received, such as an agreed pre-wedding photo session. The settlement amount was not a general compensation rate set by the court. Supreme Court paragraph 14 is relevant.

5. A “booking fee” turned out to be a refundable advance payment

In Tartu Circuit Court's judgment of 25 January 2021, 2-19-16452, a customer had paid €47,470 for the supply of structural components but received only part of the goods. The supplier argued, among other things, that €17,735 was a non-refundable booking fee. The court upheld the obligation to return €43,917.

The court found that the purpose of securing contractual performance, which is required for an earnest-money agreement, had not been proved. The booking fee was actually part of the advance payment for goods. The same examination matters for a photographer's or venue's invoice: the substance of the agreement, rather than the payment's label, is decisive. Paragraphs 16–17 are relevant.

6. An excessive sanction can be void even in a signed contract

In the Supreme Court's judgment of 23 May 2011, 3-2-1-39-11, an employer sought repayment of special remuneration and contractual penalties for breaches of confidentiality and non-compete obligations. The non-compete claims included EEK 105,000 in special remuneration and a penalty of EEK 35,000. The action was dismissed; the non-compete sanction clause had been found to be an unreasonably harmful standard term.

The term combined repayment of all special remuneration, a multiple penalty and an additional damages claim. The business had not proved that it was individually negotiated. The analogous point for wedding services is that a signature does not automatically validate an unreasonable cancellation sanction. Paragraphs 10–13 are relevant; the special rules of employment law cannot be transferred to a wedding contract.

7. A valid contractual penalty can be reduced on a reasoned application

In the Supreme Court's judgment of 21 November 2012, 3-2-1-132-12, the dispute concerned a €38,346.99 contractual penalty under a property sale agreement. The Supreme Court remitted the penalty issue. Tallinn Circuit Court then reduced the penalty to €5000 in its judgment of 22 January 2013, 2-10-67349, considering, among other matters, substantial performance, the parties' financial circumstances and the absence of corresponding loss.

This differs from a void standard term: where a contractual penalty is valid but excessive, a reduction must be requested and its unreasonableness explained. The absence of actual loss may support reduction but does not, by itself, extinguish a valid penalty. Supreme Court paragraph 12 and paragraphs 21–25 of the later judgment are relevant.

8. It matters whether termination was clearly communicated

In the Supreme Court's judgment of 13 March 2024, 2-19-18463, a contractor's amended principal claim for insulation work was €35,199, but some work had been completed by another contractor. The Supreme Court set aside the lower courts' decisions because the basis on which the contract had ended had not been established. A settlement approved on 22 February 2025 provided for payment of €15,000. 2-19-18463.

The Supreme Court stressed that termination under VÕS § 655 requires establishing the customer's clear intention to end the contract in any event. Tell the photographer or venue in writing whether you are cancelling the order, seeking to change the date, or terminating because of a specific breach. Paragraphs 13–15 are relevant; the settlement did not establish a general compensation percentage.

9. Not every defect entitles the customer to recover the entire advance payment

In the Supreme Court's judgment of 8 March 2023, 2-18-9985, a customer sought the return of a €35,000 advance payment and €6476 in damages from a builder. There were deviations in the work, but the courts found that they did not prevent completion of a compliant house. Both claims were dismissed.

The customer maintained that they had withdrawn because of a fundamental breach and did not wish to rely alternatively on ordinary termination. For wedding services, the alleged breach and its effect must be proved; a minor disagreement may not justify reclaiming the entire advance payment. Paragraphs 10–14 are relevant.

10. Justified loss of trust can matter for an organisational service

In the Supreme Court's judgment of 31 January 2013, 3-2-1-180-12, the customer had paid €37,707.87 in advance for consultancy services. The provider had allegedly acted contrary to the customer's instructions. The Supreme Court remitted the case. In its judgment of 31 May 2016, Tallinn Circuit Court awarded the entire advance payment, €801.68 in interest and €21,976.73 in late-payment interest, plus continuing interest. 2-10-38482.

The court found that ignoring instructions and disloyal conduct justified loss of trust and termination of the mandate contract. This may matter for wedding-planning services, but does not mean that simply changing one's mind creates a right to a refund. Supreme Court paragraphs 12–15 are relevant.

An example directly concerning a cancelled wedding

In the Consumer Disputes Committee's decision of 23 September 2022, a consumer cancelled a wedding celebration because of a health risk and sought the return of a €500 advance payment. The venue offered to let the payment be used for another event later, but then refused the services chosen by the consumer. The committee awarded the consumer €500 in damages. Decision 19-1/22-08177-013.

The decisive issue was breach of the later settlement agreement, rather than a general rule requiring every cancelled wedding's advance payment to be refunded. If you agree to use the payment later, record the permitted services, the deadline for using it and any refund arrangements in writing. This was a committee decision, not a court judgment.

What should you do now?

Send each provider a separate written request:

Please explain the contractual and legal basis on which you are retaining the advance payment. Please provide a calculation covering services already supplied, expenditure incurred, costs saved because of cancellation, and any sale of the same date to a new customer. I dispute automatic retention of the entire advance payment and request a refund of any amount for which there is no basis for retention.

Attach the contract, quotation, proof of payment and cancellation correspondence. A business must generally respond to a consumer's written complaint within 15 days; an unresolved dispute can be taken to the Consumer Disputes Committee or court. Legal basis: TKS § 24(5) and (9) and § 40(3). Consumer Protection Act.

To assess your particular situation, the reason for cancellation, notice period, advance-payment amount and contractual refund term are needed.