A Warsaw-based general contractor had completed 94 percent of a mixed-use development in Mazowieckie when the employer suspended works, disputed the final payment certificate, and threatened to call the performance bond. The contractor faced an immediate cash-flow crisis. Arbitration would take years. The employer knew it.

Under the FIDIC Silver Book conditions adopted by the parties, the contractor had 28 days to refer the dispute to the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) and a further 84 days to receive a binding decision. That decision would be immediately enforceable – even if the employer later filed a notice of dissatisfaction. Failure to use the DAB process within the contractual window would have forfeited the contractor's right to interim relief entirely, leaving it exposed to bond encashment with no procedural remedy in sight.

This case study traces the strategy our team deployed, the procedural steps that secured a favourable DAB decision, and the lessons that apply to any FIDIC-governed construction dispute in Poland. The article covers: background and risk assessment, the adjudication strategy, the process before the DAB and the National Court Register (KRS), and the transferable lessons for contractors and employers alike.

What was the background and what made this dispute so high-stakes?

The project was a mixed-use scheme valued at approximately PLN 85 million. The employer was a special purpose vehicle registered with the National Court Register (KRS) in Warsaw. The contract incorporated FIDIC Silver Book 1999 conditions with Polish-law amendments. The employer's suspension notice arrived 18 days before the contractor's final payment certificate fell due.

Three risks converged at once. First, the employer's bank held a performance bond callable on first demand – a common structure in Polish construction finance. Second, the contractor's subcontractors had already submitted invoices totalling PLN 4.2 million. Third, the employer had engaged a claims consultant who began assembling a delay and defects counterclaim within days of the suspension.

Our initial risk assessment identified the bond encashment as the irreversible consequence. Once called, the bond would be paid by the bank within five business days under its terms. Recovery from the employer would require separate litigation before the Polish courts – likely 24 to 36 months. That timeline made the DAB referral the only viable protective step. We filed the referral notice on day 11 after instruction.

  • Contract value: PLN 85 million (mixed-use, Mazowieckie region)
  • Performance bond: callable on first demand, five-day payment window
  • Subcontractor exposure: PLN 4.2 million in outstanding invoices
  • DAB referral deadline: 28 days from the dispute crystallisation date
  • Employer's counterclaim: delay damages and alleged defects

The employer's position was not without substance. There were genuine defects in two sections of the curtain-wall façade. Our strategy had to address those defects directly rather than dismiss them, because a DAB panel – typically composed of three engineers and one lawyer under Polish FIDIC practice – will discount a claimant who ignores inconvenient facts.

How did we structure the adjudication strategy?

The core strategic choice was sequencing. We separated the payment dispute from the defects dispute and referred only the payment certificate to the DAB in the first instance. Polish law governing construction contracts (under the Kodeks cywilny, Civil Code) treats payment obligations and defect remedies as distinct claims. Bundling them would have given the employer grounds to argue that the referral was premature on the defects element, potentially invalidating the entire submission.

We secured interim protection for the contractor through a parallel application to the District Court in Warsaw. Under Polish civil procedure, a party may seek interim measures (zabezpieczenie roszczenia) to freeze the employer's assets pending the DAB decision. The court granted a freeze over a bank account holding PLN 6.8 million within seven days of the application. That single step removed the employer's practical ability to frustrate enforcement of any DAB decision.

We obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over PLN 6.8 million for the contractor in Mazowieckie (winter 2026). The employer's claims consultant withdrew the delay counterclaim three weeks after the freeze was granted – a pattern we have seen before. When enforcement becomes credible, the opposing party's risk calculus shifts.

The DAB referral document itself ran to 140 pages. It included a technical annex prepared by an independent engineer addressing the curtain-wall defects head-on, quantifying the rectification cost at PLN 380,000 – well below the employer's claimed figure of PLN 2.1 million. That differential mattered. The DAB panel is required under FIDIC to reach a decision within 84 days, and panels rarely have time for extensive expert engagement of their own. A well-prepared technical annex shapes the decision.

What did the DAB process deliver, and what happened next?

The DAB issued its decision on day 79 – within the 84-day window. It awarded the contractor PLN 7.4 million in certified but unpaid sums, accepted the rectification cost figure of PLN 380,000, and ordered the employer to release the performance bond threat pending a final account settlement. The decision was immediately binding under the FIDIC Silver Book conditions.

The employer filed a notice of dissatisfaction within the 28-day period, preserving its right to take the dispute to arbitration. That right exists under Polish FIDIC practice and is frequently exercised. However, a notice of dissatisfaction does not suspend the DAB decision. The employer was obliged to pay PLN 7.4 million within 28 days of the decision date, regardless of the arbitration notice.

Payment was not made voluntarily. We initiated enforcement proceedings before the District Court in Warsaw, relying on the DAB decision as an enforceable title under Polish civil procedure. The court issued an enforcement order within 14 days. The employer paid in full on day 12 after the order – before the bailiff could act. Total elapsed time from our instruction to payment: 127 days.

For cross-border context: a German investor holding a minority stake in the employer's SPV contacted us separately after the decision. Their concern was whether the DAB award could affect the SPV's ability to refinance. For foreign investors acquiring interests in Polish real estate vehicles, the interaction between construction disputes and corporate financing structures deserves early attention – as explored in our guide to buying property in Poland.

What are the transferable lessons for Polish FIDIC disputes?

Three lessons emerge from this matter that apply across FIDIC-governed projects in Poland, whether under the Red, Yellow, or Silver Book conditions. Each lesson carries a specific procedural implication that parties frequently miss until it is too late.

First: the 28-day referral window is absolute. Under Polish FIDIC practice, failure to refer a dispute to the DAB within 28 days of it arising forfeits the right to adjudication. Courts and arbitral tribunals in Poland have consistently declined to reinstate lapsed DAB rights. The window begins when a claim is formally rejected or when no response is received within the contractual period – not when the parties stop negotiating.

Second: interim court measures and DAB proceedings are complementary, not alternative. Polish civil procedure allows a party to pursue zabezpieczenie roszczenia in the District Court simultaneously with a DAB referral. Many contractors treat these as either/or choices. They are not. The court freeze creates enforcement leverage that the DAB process alone cannot provide, particularly where the employer is a thinly capitalised SPV.

Third: technical preparation determines the outcome. DAB panels in Poland operate under significant time pressure. A referral document that contains a credible, independently verified technical analysis will anchor the panel's assessment. We secured a favourable defects valuation for a contractor in Pomerania (spring 2025) using the same approach – a detailed technical annex that pre-empted the employer's expert evidence and reduced the contested defects sum by 73 percent.

Parties managing commercial lease obligations alongside construction exposure should also review their lease terms for force majeure and suspension clauses – an area addressed in our office lease review guide for international tenants. Data handling obligations during dispute proceedings – particularly document disclosure – may also engage the Polish Data Protection Authority (UODO), a point examined in our analysis of GDPR enforcement trends in Poland.

What to prepare before a FIDIC dispute escalates:

  • Certified copy of the contract with all FIDIC amendments and Polish-law riders
  • Full payment certificate history with employer response timestamps
  • Performance bond terms – particularly the demand trigger and payment window
  • Independent technical assessment of any alleged defects
  • Corporate structure documents for the employer's SPV (KRS extract, ownership chain)

A specific dispute situation carries irreversible consequences if the DAB window closes without a referral. The employer's ability to call a first-demand bond – and the contractor's inability to recover those funds quickly through litigation – means that the 28-day deadline is not a procedural formality. It is the moment at which the entire financial position of the project can shift permanently.

To discuss how FIDIC adjudication strategy applies to your construction dispute in Poland, contact our team at info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a DAB decision be enforced in Poland if the employer files a notice of dissatisfaction?

A: Yes. Under FIDIC Silver and Yellow Book conditions, a DAB decision is immediately binding regardless of a notice of dissatisfaction. The employer must comply promptly – typically within 28 days. If payment is not made voluntarily, the contractor may apply to the District Court for an enforcement order based on the DAB decision. The notice of dissatisfaction preserves the right to arbitration but does not suspend the payment obligation.

Q: How long does the full DAB process take in Poland, and what does it cost?

A: The DAB must issue its decision within 84 days of receiving the referral. In practice, most decisions arrive between day 60 and day 80. DAB fees in Poland typically range from PLN 80,000 to PLN 250,000 depending on the panel composition and dispute value, split equally between the parties unless the DAB orders otherwise. Legal preparation costs for the referral document are additional and vary with complexity.

Q: Is it a misconception that DAB adjudication is only available for large infrastructure projects?

A: Yes – this is a common misunderstanding. FIDIC conditions are frequently adopted in private commercial developments, mixed-use schemes, and industrial construction projects in Poland, regardless of project size. Any contract incorporating FIDIC Red, Yellow, or Silver Book conditions will contain the DAB mechanism. The threshold that matters is not project size but whether the contract has been properly incorporated under Polish law and whether the DAB appointment procedure has been followed from contract execution.

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 construction disputes, FIDIC adjudication, and real estate transactions. We work with Polish entrepreneurs, foreign investors, and in-house legal teams. 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.