Supreme Court | In Principle

The Supreme Court recently examined the question of courts being bound by final judgments issued in other cases. This issue relates to the binding nature of a judgment from a substantive point of view, i.e. that the same claim cannot be heard again once adjudicated upon. This is an issue of considerable practical relevance because it determines how the outcome of one case can affect how comparable cases are adjudicated. It also defines the boundaries with respect to a court’s freedom to ascertain facts and make legal evaluations by itself.

The Act on Consideration of Complaints by Financial Market Entities and on the Financial Ombudsman provides that a complaint not resolved within the stated period “is regarded as” resolved in accordance with the customer’s request. In a surprising resolution, the Supreme Court recently ruled that this does not mean that a delay in consideration of a complaint mandates that it is resolved in the customer’s favour, but such a delay merely increases the burden faced by the entity during litigation. If, of course, the matter ever reaches the courts. Was this what the legislature intended?

The Polish Supreme Court has confirmed that there is no reason not to confirm that a foreign judgment against a bankrupt company is enforceable, and issue an enforcement clause. Courts of lower instance have ruled out this possibility.

A ‘competent court’ now also includes the court at the place where the adverse effects of a tortious act occur. This approach will help victims seeking to recover damages.

There has been a great divergence in interpretation of the grounds for retention of bid bonds. A recent resolution by the Supreme Court should unify the practice of contracting authorities on this issue. But the justification for the resolution itself admits certain exceptions from the obligation to retain the bid bond, even when the documents submitted by the contractor fail to confirm fulfilment of the requirements of the tender.

The issue of determining when the appointment of a member of the supervisory board of a joint-stock company ends in connection with the expiration of the term of office has been the subject of doubts and disputes for some time. It was particularly problematic to determine when the appointment ends when the term of office does not coincide with the financial year. The Supreme Court of Poland recently addressed this issue.

To charge an employer with paying social insurance contributions on the income of its employees earned under non-employment contracts with a third party, it is not enough to determine that the effects of the work benefit the employer’s overall corporate group.

In a case led by Wardyński & Partners, the firm obtained a ruling from the Supreme Court favourable to owners of buildings as well as communal tenants, establishing the rule of the liability of the City of Warsaw for non-contractual use of the property.

Effective resignation by a member of the management board of a company is not an easy matter. The First President of the Supreme Court of Poland recently applied for a resolution on the matter by a seven-judge panel of the Supreme Court.

The engineer’s task is to take necessary measures to ensure that the contract is performed correctly and on time. But not all actions by the engineer will directly affect the investor’s own rights and obligations.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is impermissible to issue a commercial proxy to one person allowing the proxy to act only jointly with a member of the management board. What does this ruling mean for companies that have already issued such proxies?

Contracts are signed expecting the worst. The provisions should be precisely formulated, particularly when a failure to be explicit can lead to application of rigid statutory provisions instead. When a dispute arises, the court’s interpretation of the parties’ intent may differ from the literal wording of the contract.