Supreme Court | In Principle

The Supreme Court of Poland has presented to an expanded panel legal questions concerning a summons to attempt a settlement as an action interrupting the limitations period on a claim.

In the judgment of 26 April 2019 (case no. V CSK 80/18), the Supreme Court of Poland held that it is not contrary to the nature of a construction contract to condition the payment of fees on the absence of defects in the structure. Therefore, the parties’ terms requiring payment only after a faultless handover protocol has been obtained are permissible. However, in the Supreme Court’s opinion, such objections may also be included in the terms of the handover protocol. The court approved the possibility for the parties to invoke reservations made in the handover protocol, which constitute additional provisions in relation to the contract.

In a judgment involving compensation under an insurance policy, the Supreme Court of Poland has held that a pro rata provision was invalid because it was disadvantageous to the insured and was included in the insurance conditions unilaterally by the insurer as the party with the stronger contractual position.

The Supreme Court of Poland has recently issued several rulings on setoff (Civil Code Art. 498), confirming the existing line of case law and the established legal and commercial practice. The regulations on asserting the defence of setoff in civil proceedings have also been amended.

Many contracts provide for a contractual penalty for reputation of the contract due to the other party’s fault and a contractual penalty for delay in performing the contract. But in such cases can both of these penalties be pursued simultaneously?

It is permissible to agree on a contractual penalty for non-payment or late payment of fees due to subcontractors, the Supreme Court of Poland held in its resolution of 30 June 2020 (case no. III CZP 67/19).

Sometimes after receiving a cease-and-desist letter, or during the course of litigation, an infringer will replace its disputed name with a new, modified name. But often such changes are unsatisfactory for the plaintiff and are also challenged. Are the defendant’s prior actions and the designations previously used by the defendant relevant to evaluation of the new, modified designation? How to assess a situation where the defendant modifies its name while attempting to maintain continuity with the one it previously used?

The Supreme Court has held that in exceptional cases, the creditor’s conduct in enforcement proceedings will constitute an abuse of law justifying denial of the creditor’s right to execute an order. Therefore, the creditor’s inappropriate attitude may make it impossible to enforce a claim awarded by a final court decision.

Properly determining the amount of damages sought for loss of health, where a party pursuing a claim for injury partly caused the loss, can be a problem even for professional representatives of such claimants. This is because this issue raises a number of grave practical concerns, addressed by the Supreme Court in a resolution of 11 April 2019 (III CZP 105/18), and also by other bodies.

W polskiej praktyce obrotu gospodarczego od dłuższego czasu budzi wątpliwości możliwość skutecznego wprowadzenia w umowach o roboty budowlane klauzul nakładających na jedną ze stron kontraktu obowiązek powiadomienia drugiej strony o okolicznościach uprawniających do żądania dodatkowej zapłaty za wynagrodzenie. Klauzule te wywodzą się z kontraktów zawieranych na wzorcach umownych FIDIC, opracowanych przez Międzynarodową Federację Inżynierów Konsultantów.

A guarantee agreement is the most widely accepted and common basis for a number of solutions used in M&A transactions. Therefore, its correct application is of fundamental importance for this practice. Meanwhile, judgments issued in recent years by the Supreme Court of Poland on the nature and normative sources of such obligations have caused doctrinal controversies and uncertainty among trade participants. It is therefore worth briefly summarising where the case law stands and the conclusions that can be drawn from it.

A judgment of the Supreme Court overruling a decision of the president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) does not apply to all participants in an agreement restricting competition. If a cassation appeal by one of them has been rejected or the Supreme Court has refused to accept it for examination, the case is irrevocably closed, regardless of how the proceedings continue and whether the decision of the president of UOKiK is ultimately upheld.