A Warsaw-based IT company wins a contract dispute outright. The court rules in its favour. Then comes the second surprise: the opposing party challenges the cost award, and the client discovers that Polish procedural rules on cost recovery are far more intricate than anyone anticipated. Court fees, attorney costs, and expert witness expenses all follow distinct rules – and a single procedural misstep can forfeit thousands of zlotys in otherwise recoverable costs.
Under Polish civil procedure, the losing party generally bears the winning party's reasonable litigation costs. The governing framework is the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC), which sets out the cost-shifting principle, the schedule of recoverable attorney fees, and the court's discretion to apportion costs where only partial success is achieved. The district court (sąd rejonowy) or regional court (sąd okręgowy) issues a cost award in the same judgment or order that resolves the merits.
This guide walks through the full cost-recovery process step by step: which costs are recoverable, how the court calculates them, what mistakes litigants commonly make, and how three different business scenarios play out under Polish procedural law. Foreign investors and in-house teams will find the cross-border dimension addressed directly.
What costs can a winning party recover in Polish civil proceedings?
Polish procedural law divides litigation costs into two main categories: court costs (koszty sądowe) and party costs (koszty strony). Court costs include the filing fee (opłata sądowa), expert witness fees, and translation charges ordered by the court. Party costs cover attorney or legal counsel fees and necessary travel expenses. Both categories are recoverable in principle, subject to the court's assessment of necessity and proportionality.
The filing fee is calculated as a percentage of the claim value. For monetary claims, the standard rate is 5% of the disputed amount, subject to a minimum of PLN 30 and a cap of PLN 200,000. This single figure often surprises foreign clients used to flat-rate or lower-percentage systems. A PLN 4 million claim therefore attracts a filing fee of PLN 200,000 – the statutory ceiling.
Attorney fees follow a separate tariff set by the Ministry of Justice. The tariff establishes minimum amounts keyed to the value of the dispute. Courts award fees within this tariff unless the complexity or volume of the case justifies a multiplier, which may reach up to six times the minimum. Recoverable attorney fees are therefore not automatically equal to what a client actually paid its lawyers. The gap can be significant.
- Court filing fee – 5% of claim value, capped at PLN 200,000
- Attorney fees – Ministry of Justice tariff, multiplier up to ×6
- Expert witness costs – recoverable if the expert was court-appointed
- Translation and interpretation – recoverable if ordered by the court
- Necessary travel expenses – recoverable at statutory rates
One practical point worth keeping in mind: costs incurred for party-appointed experts are generally not recoverable unless the court formally appoints the same expert. Litigation Warsaw practitioners frequently see clients lose this element of their cost claim simply because the expert engagement was not structured correctly at the outset.
How does the court calculate and apportion costs?
The court applies the success principle (zasada odpowiedzialności za wynik procesu) as its default rule. The loser pays the winner's recoverable costs in full. Where a party succeeds only in part, the court apportions costs in proportion to the degree of success. A party that wins 60% of its claim recovers 60% of its costs and bears 40% of the opponent's costs. This proportional approach is standard before both the district court and the regional court.
We secured a reversal of a cost apportionment decision exceeding PLN 800,000 for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The lower court had incorrectly calculated the degree of success by ignoring a counterclaim that had been dismissed. Correcting that error changed the proportional split materially.
The court retains discretion to depart from strict proportionality in two situations. First, where the circumstances of the case make strict apportionment inequitable – for example, where the amount awarded differed from the amount claimed solely because of court discretion in assessing damages. Second, where one party caused unnecessary costs through dilatory conduct. In either case, the court must state its reasoning in the judgment.
Timeline matters here. A party must raise its cost claim before the court closes the hearing. Costs not claimed in time are forfeited – this is an irreversible procedural consequence that no appeal can remedy after the fact. The court issues a cost order as part of the final judgment. A separate challenge to the cost element is possible within the ordinary appeal window of 14 days for orders, or as part of the full appeal on the merits.
What are the most common mistakes in cost recovery proceedings?
Three errors appear consistently across disputes handled in Warsaw and Kraków. First, litigants fail to submit a detailed cost specification (spis kosztów) before the hearing closes. Without a specification, the court calculates costs on its own motion using the minimum tariff – which almost always undervalues the actual cost of the litigation. Submitting a specification is a simple step, but it is routinely overlooked.
Second, parties misunderstand what "necessary costs" means in Polish procedural law. Costs are necessary if they were objectively required to pursue or defend the claim effectively. Costs that were merely convenient, or that reflected the client's preference for a particular working method, do not qualify. Expert fees for a party-appointed expert fall into this trap repeatedly.
Our team obtained recovery of procedural costs exceeding PLN 1.2 million for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), after the opposing party had challenged the necessity of translation costs incurred during cross-border document review. The key was demonstrating that the translations were required to respond to court-ordered evidentiary requests – not merely for internal use.
Third, foreign clients sometimes confuse the KPC cost rules with arbitration cost rules. In arbitration Poland proceedings, cost allocation follows the arbitral tribunal's discretion and the applicable institutional rules – not the KPC tariff. This distinction matters when a party is considering whether to litigate before state courts or opt for arbitral resolution. The recoverable cost ceiling in state court proceedings is capped; arbitration awards can reflect full legal costs where the rules permit.
How do cost rules apply across three business scenarios?
Understanding how cost rules operate in the abstract is useful. Seeing them applied to concrete situations is more useful still. Three scenarios illustrate the main variables: claim size, partial success, and cross-border enforcement.
Scenario 1 – Manufacturing company, straightforward debt recovery. A Silesian manufacturer files a PLN 500,000 payment claim before the regional court. The filing fee is PLN 25,000. The defendant pays in full before the hearing. The claimant is entitled to recover the filing fee and attorney costs at the minimum tariff, provided it withdraws the claim and requests a cost order simultaneously. Failure to request costs at withdrawal forfeits them permanently.
Scenario 2 – IT company, partial success. A Warsaw IT company claims PLN 2 million for breach of a software development contract. The court awards PLN 1.4 million – 70% of the claim. Costs are apportioned 70/30. The filing fee of PLN 100,000 is split accordingly: the defendant bears PLN 70,000, and the IT company bears PLN 30,000 of the defendant's costs. Attorney fees follow the same ratio. The net cost recovery depends on the tariff multiplier the court applies.
Scenario 3 – Foreign investor, cross-border enforcement. A German investor obtains a judgment in Poland and seeks to enforce it against assets located in Italy. The Polish proceedings generated a cost award. That award is itself a money judgment and can be enforced abroad under applicable EU instruments. For the enforcement mechanics, see our guides on enforcing an Italian judgment in Poland and on board liability for tax arrears, which illustrates how cost exposure can extend to individual directors where a corporate defendant becomes insolvent during proceedings.
A KIO appeal (procurement review board) follows different cost rules entirely. In public procurement disputes, cost recovery is governed by separate regulations, and the amounts involved are often lower. Dispute lawyers advising on procurement matters should flag this distinction early to avoid misaligned client expectations.
What practical steps should a party take to protect its cost recovery?
Cost recovery does not happen automatically. It requires deliberate action at each stage of the proceedings. The checklist below covers the minimum steps a well-advised party should take.
- File a detailed cost specification before the hearing closes – do not rely on the court's own calculation
- Structure expert engagements so that the court formally appoints the expert, not just the party
- Document all necessary expenditures with invoices and a clear link to specific procedural steps
- Request a cost order expressly when withdrawing a claim after the defendant satisfies it voluntarily
- Check whether a sanctions compliance review or cross-border element triggers additional recoverable costs under specific regulations
The 14-day window to appeal a cost order runs from the date the judgment is served with written reasons. Missing this window forecloses any challenge – there is no reinstatement mechanism under Polish procedural law. Recovery, once forfeited, is gone.
Where the opposing party is a foreign entity, sanctions compliance considerations may affect enforcement. Assets subject to EU or Polish sanctions cannot be used to satisfy a cost award without appropriate authorisation. This is a niche issue, but it has become more common since 2022. A dispute lawyer with sanctions experience should assess this risk before a cost award is sought.
For parties considering whether to pursue cost recovery through state court or through arbitration, the decision matrix is straightforward. State court proceedings offer a capped but predictable cost tariff. Arbitration offers flexibility and potentially full cost recovery, but requires an arbitration clause and involves arbitral institution fees. For claims above EUR 500,000, arbitration economics often favour the claimant if it prevails.
Specific situation requiring tailored advice on cost recovery? Every case turns on its own procedural history. Contact info@kordeckipartners.com to receive an assessment of your cost position before the hearing closes.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Can a party recover VAT on attorney fees as part of litigation costs?
A: Generally, no. The Ministry of Justice tariff sets net amounts, and courts award costs based on those net figures. A party that is a registered VAT payer can recover input VAT through its VAT return, so the VAT element is not treated as an irrecoverable loss. A party that is not a VAT payer may, in some circumstances, argue that gross costs are recoverable, but this remains a contested point and courts decide it inconsistently. Seek specific advice before including VAT in your cost specification.
Q: How long does it take to receive a cost award after judgment?
A: The cost order is issued as part of the final judgment. Once the judgment becomes final and binding – typically after the 21-day appeal window expires – the cost award is immediately enforceable. Enforcement through a bailiff (komornik sądowy) can begin within days of the judgment becoming final. In practice, contested enforcement may add several months, particularly where the debtor challenges the enforcement order or where assets must be located.
Q: Is it true that Polish courts always award the full attorney fee actually paid by the winning party?
A: This is a common misconception. Polish courts award attorney fees according to the Ministry of Justice tariff, not based on the contractual fee actually paid by the client. The tariff sets minimum amounts, and the court may apply a multiplier of up to six times the minimum in complex cases. However, even the maximum tariff award often falls short of the actual fee charged by experienced litigation counsel. The gap between recoverable and actual attorney costs is a real financial exposure that parties should factor into their dispute budgets from the outset.
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, cost recovery proceedings, and cross-border enforcement. 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.