A German logistics company receives a court order from a London Commercial Court telling it to halt arbitration proceedings it had just commenced in Warsaw. The order arrives with a two-week compliance deadline. The company's Polish counsel has never seen anything quite like it – and the clock is already running.

Anti-suit injunctions are orders issued by one court or tribunal directing a party to discontinue, suspend, or refrain from pursuing proceedings in a different forum. When Polish proceedings are on the receiving end of such an order – or when a Polish court is asked to issue one – the procedural and jurisdictional stakes are high. EU law sharply restricts anti-suit injunctions between Member States, while third-country orders targeting Polish arbitration or litigation remain enforceable in theory but contested in practice. Immediate legal advice is essential: non-compliance can forfeit procedural rights permanently.

This alert covers three areas: the current legal framework governing anti-suit injunctions that touch Polish proceedings, who is most exposed, and the concrete steps that affected parties must take within the first 14 days of receiving such an order.

What has changed in the legal framework for anti-suit injunctions?

The starting point is EU law. The Court of Justice of the European Union settled the position years ago: courts of EU Member States may not issue anti-suit injunctions to restrain proceedings in other Member States. This rule flows directly from the principle of mutual trust embedded in the Brussels I Recast Regulation, which governs civil and commercial jurisdiction across the EU. A Polish court will refuse to issue such an order against, say, proceedings in Germany or France. Equally, a German or French court cannot lawfully restrain Polish litigation under EU instruments.

The position changes when arbitration enters the picture. Arbitration sits outside the Brussels I Recast Regulation. English courts – even post-Brexit – have revived the practice of issuing anti-suit injunctions to protect London-seated arbitration against parallel litigation anywhere in the world, including Poland. This is the most active pressure point for Polish parties today. A party that ignores a London anti-suit injunction risks contempt findings, asset freezes, and enforcement difficulties in any jurisdiction where it holds assets.

Within Poland itself, the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC) gives Polish courts interim-measure powers that can, in principle, be used to restrain foreign proceedings – but only where Polish jurisdiction is properly established and the measure is proportionate. The National Court Register (KRS) records the registered seat of Polish entities, which courts use to assess jurisdictional anchors. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) becomes relevant where regulated financial entities are involved. The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) may have a stake if the underlying dispute touches competition law.

The practical shift since 2024 is volume. Cross-border disputes involving Polish parties have grown sharply, driven by supply-chain restructuring and sanctions compliance obligations. More London arbitration clauses mean more exposure to English anti-suit orders. More Warsaw-seated arbitration proceedings mean more requests to Polish courts for protective measures. Parties that drafted contracts before 2022 often face forum clauses that no longer reflect current risk.

Who is affected and what are the critical thresholds?

Any Polish company or foreign entity with Polish proceedings – whether litigation Warsaw or arbitration Poland – is potentially exposed. Three categories face the highest risk. First, companies with dual-forum contracts: agreements containing both a choice-of-court clause and an arbitration clause create immediate ambiguity that opposing counsel will exploit. Second, parties in ongoing KIO appeal proceedings (procurement disputes before the National Appeals Chamber): a foreign counterparty may seek to restrain those proceedings via an injunction from its home court. Third, financial entities subject to DORA ICT risk management obligations, where contractual disputes with third-country technology providers may trigger English or US court intervention.

Thresholds matter. An English anti-suit injunction is most likely when: (a) the contract contains a London arbitration clause, (b) the value of the dispute exceeds GBP 500,000, and (c) the respondent holds assets in a jurisdiction that enforces English court orders. Below that value, the cost-benefit calculus for the applicant usually does not support seeking injunctive relief. Above it, the risk of a without-notice (ex parte) order is real – meaning the Polish party may receive no advance warning.

We secured a stay of enforcement of a foreign anti-suit order for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), preserving their Warsaw arbitration proceedings while jurisdictional arguments were resolved. We also obtained protective interim measures for a technology company in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), preventing a unilateral forum switch by a third-country counterparty mid-dispute.

Sanctions compliance adds a further layer. Where a party to the underlying dispute is subject to EU or US sanctions, the anti-suit injunction may be used tactically – to force proceedings into a forum perceived as more favourable on sanctions defences. Dispute lawyers advising Polish exporters must check sanctions status before responding to any injunction application.

What must you do within 14 days of receiving an anti-suit order?

Speed is not optional. An English anti-suit injunction typically gives 14 days to comply or apply to discharge. Missing that window without filing a challenge forfeits the right to contest jurisdiction and can constitute contempt of court. The consequences are irreversible: asset freezes, enforcement in third countries, and reputational damage with counterparties.

The immediate action checklist:

  • Identify the issuing court and the legal basis of the order within 24 hours.
  • Instruct local counsel in the issuing jurisdiction – Polish counsel alone cannot discharge an English order.
  • File a holding response or acknowledgment in the issuing court before the compliance deadline.
  • Apply for interim protection in the Polish proceedings to preserve the status quo pending resolution.
  • Review the underlying contract for governing law, seat of arbitration, and any asymmetric clauses.

On the Polish side, a party wishing to resist a foreign anti-suit order must move quickly in the Polish court or arbitral tribunal. A request for interim measures under the KPC can be filed within days. The Polish court will assess whether the foreign order conflicts with Polish public policy – a real ground for resistance where the order targets proceedings before a Polish state court, given EU mutual-trust principles. For arbitration Poland proceedings, the arbitral tribunal itself may issue an anti-suit order in the opposite direction, creating a standoff that only a higher-level jurisdictional ruling can resolve.

Foreign investors with Polish subsidiaries should also consider whether the anti-suit order affects related enforcement proceedings. For parties dealing with cross-border judgment recognition, the procedural interaction between an anti-suit order and a pending enforcement application can be complex – particularly where Ukrainian or CIS counterparties are involved. The step-by-step mechanics of enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland remain a separate but linked concern.

Cross-border disputes involving Italian companies operating in Poland present a specific variant: EU mutual-trust rules protect Italian court proceedings from Polish anti-suit orders, but arbitration seated in Milan or Rome sits outside that protection. Parties should map their forum clauses carefully before a dispute crystallises.

For entities navigating DORA compliance alongside a live dispute, the overlap between ICT contract obligations and forum-selection disputes is an emerging area where early legal input prevents compounding risk.

Specific advice on your situation is essential before the compliance deadline expires. Contact info@kordeckipartners.com to discuss how an anti-suit order affecting your Polish proceedings should be handled.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a Polish court issue an anti-suit injunction against proceedings in another EU Member State?

A: No. EU law, specifically the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the mutual-trust principle, prohibits Polish courts from issuing anti-suit injunctions against proceedings in other EU Member States. Attempting to do so would violate EU law and the order would not be recognised elsewhere in the EU. The prohibition applies regardless of whether the Polish proceedings were commenced first.

Q: How long does a party have to challenge an English anti-suit injunction, and what does it cost?

A: The compliance or discharge window is typically 14 days from service of the order, though the specific deadline appears in the order itself. Challenging the order requires instructing English solicitors and, usually, King's Counsel. Costs for a discharge application in the London Commercial Court commonly range from GBP 50,000 to GBP 200,000 depending on complexity. Acting within the first 48 hours significantly improves the outcome.

Q: Is it a misconception that arbitration proceedings in Poland are protected from foreign anti-suit orders?

A: Yes. A common misconception is that Warsaw-seated arbitration is insulated from foreign court interference simply because it is seated in Poland. In fact, any court with personal jurisdiction over a party – including English courts post-Brexit – can issue an anti-suit injunction targeting that party's participation in Polish arbitration. The seat of arbitration determines the supervisory court for procedural matters, but it does not prevent foreign courts from acting against the parties personally.

KORDECKI & Partners is a law firm based in Warsaw and Krakow, advising business clients across 30 jurisdictions. Our team combines expertise in Polish and international law with a practical approach to commercial litigation, arbitration, and cross-border dispute resolution. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams facing anti-suit injunctions, enforcement proceedings, and multi-forum disputes. To discuss your situation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Disclaimer: This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information herein should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to your specific circumstances. KORDECKI & Partners assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on the contents of this material. For advice regarding your particular situation, please contact info@kordeckipartners.com.