A German technology company wins a contract dispute in a Warsaw district court. The judgment is in its favour. Then comes the question nobody prepared for: who pays the lawyers, the court fees, the expert witnesses? In Polish civil proceedings, cost recovery follows a structured set of rules – and the outcome depends heavily on how the case was conducted from day one.

Polish civil proceedings govern cost recovery through the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC) and the ustawa o kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych (Act on Court Costs in Civil Cases). The prevailing party is entitled to recover court fees, representation costs, and certain disbursements from the losing side. Recovery is not automatic – the winning party must file a cost specification, and the court retains discretion to adjust the award based on the outcome and conduct of the parties.

This guide walks through the full cost recovery process: how costs are calculated, when courts depart from the standard allocation rule, how foreign investors and domestic businesses can protect their position, and what mistakes to avoid. Three business scenarios illustrate how the rules apply in practice.

What costs can a party recover in Polish civil proceedings?

Polish civil litigation breaks recoverable costs into two main categories. The first covers court fees paid to the state treasury – filing fees, fees for appeals, and fees for interim measures. The second covers the costs of legal representation, capped by ministerial regulations that set maximum amounts based on the value of the dispute. A party who wins the case is entitled to demand reimbursement of both categories from the losing side.

Court fees in Poland are generally calculated as a percentage of the value of the claim. For claims up to PLN 20,000, a flat fee schedule applies. For higher-value claims, the fee is 5% of the claim value, subject to a statutory ceiling of PLN 200,000. This ceiling matters in practice: a company pursuing a PLN 10m claim pays the same court fee as one pursuing a PLN 50m claim. The National Court Register (KRS) filing fees and fees paid to the National Appeals Chamber (KIO) in procurement disputes follow separate schedules.

Attorney's fees recoverable from the opposing party are set by regulations issued by the Minister of Justice. These amounts are not the same as the fees actually charged by counsel – they are fixed tariffs. For a PLN 1m claim, the recoverable attorney's fee is PLN 10,800. For a PLN 10m claim, it rises to PLN 25,000. Parties frequently pay their lawyers far more than these tariffs; the difference is borne by the client regardless of outcome. This gap is a practical consideration for any dispute budget.

  • Court filing fee: 5% of claim value, capped at PLN 200,000
  • Recoverable attorney's fee: determined by ministerial tariff, not actual invoice
  • Expert witness fees: recoverable if ordered by the court
  • Translation and notarisation costs: recoverable if necessary for the proceedings
  • Travel and attendance costs: recoverable in limited circumstances

How does the proportional recovery rule work?

The default rule under Polish civil procedure is straightforward: the losing party bears all costs. When a party wins entirely, the court orders the opponent to reimburse all recoverable costs. The complexity arises when the outcome is partial – a claimant who sought PLN 500,000 and was awarded PLN 300,000 has won 60% of its claim. The court then applies proportional allocation. Each side bears costs in proportion to the share it lost.

Proportional allocation can produce counterintuitive results. Consider a claimant who paid PLN 25,000 in court fees and PLN 10,800 in recoverable attorney's fees. The defendant paid PLN 10,800 in attorney's fees. If the claimant won 60%, the court calculates: claimant recovers 60% of its PLN 35,800, and the defendant recovers 40% of its PLN 10,800. The net result is a single payment after set-off. Litigants who do not model this calculation before filing often find the financial outcome less favourable than expected.

Courts also have discretion to depart from proportional allocation entirely. Where one party's conduct unreasonably prolonged the proceedings – for example, by filing unfounded motions, delaying disclosure, or submitting evidence late – the court may charge all costs to that party even if it won on the merits. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) regulated entities should note that this discretion applies equally in disputes involving regulated counterparties. Good procedural conduct has direct financial consequences.

We secured a reversal of a cost allocation order exceeding PLN 180,000 for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (spring 2025). The lower court had penalised our client for late evidence submission. On appeal, we demonstrated that the delay resulted from the opposing party's failure to provide documents in disclosure, not from any fault of our client.

What are the most common mistakes in cost recovery claims?

The single most frequent error is failing to file a cost specification before the closing hearing. Under the KPC, a party who does not submit a written cost bill – called a spis kosztów – by the time the court closes the evidentiary stage forfeits the right to have those costs assessed in detail. The court will then calculate costs based on the statutory tariffs alone, potentially missing legitimate disbursements that exceeded those tariffs. This is an irreversible consequence: there is no mechanism to correct it after judgment.

A second common mistake is underestimating the claim value at the outset. The claim value determines the court fee, the recoverable attorney's fee, and the appeal fee. Some parties deliberately understate the value to reduce the upfront filing cost. This strategy backfires: if the court later determines the true value was higher, it can order a supplementary fee. More importantly, a lower stated value reduces the recoverable attorney's fee even after a full win.

Foreign investors sometimes overlook that costs in arbitration proceedings in Poland follow different rules. Arbitration Poland proceedings under the KPC book on arbitration allow parties to agree on cost allocation entirely. Where no agreement exists, the arbitral tribunal has wide discretion. Parties who assume that civil court cost rules apply automatically to arbitration clauses in their contracts will find themselves without the protection they expected.

  • File the spis kosztów before the evidentiary stage closes – missing this deadline forfeits detailed cost recovery
  • State the claim value accurately at the outset to preserve full cost entitlement
  • Distinguish between court and arbitration proceedings – cost rules differ materially
  • Budget for the gap between ministerial tariffs and actual counsel fees

To receive an expert assessment of your cost recovery position in pending or planned litigation, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Your company's specific situation may involve cross-border enforcement, a partial judgment, or an arbitration clause that changes the entire cost picture. Acting without a clear cost strategy before filing precludes recovery of costs that could have been protected.

How do three business scenarios illustrate cost recovery in practice?

Three scenarios show how the rules operate across different business contexts. Each involves a different type of claimant and a different dispute structure – but all three turn on decisions made before or during the proceedings, not just at the end.

Scenario one: manufacturing company, domestic dispute. A Silesian manufacturer pursues a PLN 2m unpaid invoice against a domestic buyer. It files the claim accurately, pays the PLN 100,000 court fee (5% of PLN 2m), and retains counsel. The court awards the full PLN 2m. The defendant is ordered to pay PLN 100,000 in court fees plus PLN 15,000 in recoverable attorney's fees. Total recovery: PLN 115,000 in addition to the principal. The manufacturer's actual legal bill was PLN 80,000 – so the tariff covered it in this case.

Scenario two: IT company, partial success. A Warsaw-based software firm claims PLN 800,000 in damages for breach of a development contract. The court awards PLN 480,000 – 60% of the claim. Court fee paid: PLN 40,000. Recoverable attorney's fee: PLN 10,800 per side. The proportional calculation leaves the claimant with a net cost recovery of roughly PLN 19,000 after set-off. The actual legal bill was PLN 120,000. The PLN 100,000 shortfall was not recoverable. Parties in IT disputes should consider this gap when evaluating settlement offers. For background on how Polish courts treat software-related claims, see our guide on software copyright protection under Polish law.

Scenario three: foreign investor, cross-border enforcement. A German investor holds a judgment from a Slovak court and seeks enforcement in Poland. The enforcement proceedings carry their own cost structure. Recoverable costs in enforcement proceedings are lower than in full merits proceedings – typically a flat fee of PLN 200 plus a percentage of the amount enforced. For parties in this position, understanding both the Slovak judgment recognition procedure and the Polish enforcement cost rules is essential. Our article on enforcing a Slovakia judgment in Poland step-by-step covers the recognition process in detail.

What should parties prepare before filing a cost recovery claim?

Preparation before filing determines the ceiling on what is recoverable. Courts cannot award costs that were not properly documented and claimed. A dispute lawyer engaged early in the process can structure the file so that all recoverable items are captured. This is not a formality – it is a financial decision that shapes the economics of the entire dispute.

We obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 3m for a technology client in Lower Silesia (winter 2025). The cost of the interim measure application – including the required security deposit – was later recovered in full because we filed a detailed cost specification at every procedural stage, not just at the final hearing.

Parties pursuing claims with a cross-border element should also consider whether the foreign judgment recognition process adds a separate layer of recoverable costs. Recognition proceedings under EU regulations carry their own fee schedules. For parties holding Cyprus-based judgments, our guide on enforcing a Cyprus judgment in Poland step-by-step sets out the applicable cost framework.

What to prepare before filing:

  • Accurate calculation of the claim value, including interest and ancillary claims
  • Documentation of all anticipated disbursements: expert fees, translations, notarisation
  • A draft spis kosztów updated at each procedural stage
  • A cost model showing the proportional allocation outcome at different success levels
  • Confirmation of whether the dispute is subject to an arbitration clause

Sanctions compliance considerations can also affect cost recovery. Where a party's assets are subject to sanctions restrictions, enforcement of a cost award may be delayed or blocked. Parties in sectors with sanctions exposure should factor this risk into their dispute strategy before committing to litigation Warsaw proceedings.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does cost assessment take after judgment in Polish civil proceedings?

A: Where the court assesses costs as part of the judgment, the process adds no extra time. Where costs are assessed by a separate referendarz sądowy (court referendary) after the main ruling, the process typically takes four to eight weeks. The referendary's decision can be challenged within one week, which may extend the timeline by a further two to three months if the challenge is pursued.

Q: Is it a common misconception that winning the case means full recovery of legal fees?

A: Yes – this is one of the most persistent misunderstandings in Polish litigation. Recovery is limited to the ministerial tariff, not the actual invoice. For complex disputes, actual counsel fees routinely exceed tariff amounts by a factor of three to five. Parties should budget for this gap from the outset and treat the tariff recovery as a partial offset, not a full reimbursement.

Q: Do KIO appeal proceedings in public procurement disputes follow the same cost rules?

A: No. KIO appeal proceedings have their own cost structure under the Public Procurement Law. The appeal fee ranges from PLN 7,500 to PLN 15,000 depending on the contract value. If the appeal succeeds, the contracting authority is ordered to reimburse the fee. Attorney's fees in KIO proceedings are recoverable up to PLN 3,600 per case. These rules differ materially from standard civil court cost allocation.

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 disputes, cost recovery strategy, 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.