A foreign investor's Warsaw subsidiary wins a two-year commercial dispute outright. The court finds in its favour on every claim. Yet the cost order covers barely half the legal fees actually paid. The client asks, reasonably enough: why? The answer lies in a set of cost recovery rules that are technically precise, structurally layered, and – for the uninitiated – genuinely counterintuitive.
Polish civil proceedings follow a cost-shifting framework rooted in the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC). The general rule is that the losing party bears the winner's costs. In practice, however, the amount recoverable is capped by a statutory tariff set by the Ministry of Justice, not by the fees actually negotiated between client and counsel. For most commercial disputes above PLN 100,000, the gap between real cost and recoverable cost is substantial.
This analysis walks through four dimensions of the framework: the doctrinal foundations, the mechanics of calculation and allocation, the cross-border implications for foreign claimants, and the strategic choices that determine whether a party maximises or forfeits its recoverable position. Each section is written to be actionable for in-house counsel and foreign investors operating in Poland.
What are the doctrinal foundations of cost recovery in Polish civil proceedings?
Polish cost law rests on three pillars. First, the principle of causation: whoever made litigation necessary bears its costs. Second, the principle of proportionality: partial success triggers proportional cost allocation. Third, the principle of judicial discretion: courts retain power to depart from the standard formula in justified cases. All three are embedded in the KPC and refined through decades of Supreme Court of Poland (Sąd Najwyższy) jurisprudence.
The causation principle sounds simple. It is not. Courts at the Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) level regularly debate whether a defendant who paid just before proceedings were filed "caused" the lawsuit. If the payment arrived after the claimant had already incurred filing costs, the defendant may still bear those costs even if the case is discontinued. The National Court Register (KRS) filing date of the payment, not the bank value date, is often the decisive timestamp.
Proportionality operates through a ratio. If a claimant wins 60 percent of the claimed amount, the court offsets costs: the defendant pays 60 percent of the claimant's costs, and the claimant pays 40 percent of the defendant's costs. The net figure is then ordered as a single payment. This arithmetic seems mechanical, but the inputs – particularly the tariff caps – distort the outcome considerably.
Judicial discretion allows a court to award full costs to a party who technically won less than the full claim, where the reduction was caused by the defendant's conduct during proceedings (for example, late payment of an undisputed sum). The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) and other public bodies litigating against regulated entities have encountered this doctrine when courts penalise procedural obstruction through cost orders exceeding the standard ratio.
How are recoverable costs calculated and allocated?
Recoverable costs have two components: court fees (opłaty sądowe) and attorney's fees (koszty zastępstwa procesowego). Court fees are paid upfront by the claimant at a rate of 5 percent of the claim value, capped at PLN 200,000. They are recoverable in full if the claimant wins. Attorney's fees, by contrast, are governed by the tariff regulation issued by the Ministry of Justice, which sets minimum and maximum amounts tied to the value of the dispute.
For a dispute valued at PLN 500,000, the tariff allows recovery of attorney's fees in the range of PLN 10,800 to PLN 21,600 at first instance. A Warsaw commercial litigation firm handling that case may charge the client PLN 80,000 or more. The gap – PLN 58,000 to PLN 69,000 – is not recoverable. Courts may award above the minimum but rarely exceed the tariff maximum, absent exceptional circumstances.
The allocation formula under the KPC distinguishes between full costs (where one party bears all), mutual offset (where each party bears its own costs), and partial offset (proportional to success). Courts must state the formula used in the operative part of the judgment. A failure to do so is an appealable procedural error, though the Appeal Court (Sąd Apelacyjny) typically corrects rather than overturns on this ground alone.
- Court fees: 5% of claim value, capped at PLN 200,000, recoverable in full on full success
- Attorney's fees: tariff-capped, not actual fees; gap is borne by the winning party
- Expert witness fees: recoverable in full if ordered by the court
- Translation costs: recoverable if the court ordered the translation
- Travel and document costs: recoverable only if itemised and approved by the court
We secured a full cost order – including above-minimum attorney's fees – for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025), where the defendant had prolonged proceedings by filing multiple unfounded procedural motions. The court found that the defendant's conduct justified departing from the standard tariff minimum and awarded fees at the upper end of the permitted range.
One misconception worth addressing: winning a KIO appeal (the National Appeals Chamber, Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza) in public procurement disputes follows a separate cost regime. KIO proceedings have their own fee schedule, and cost recovery there does not mirror the civil court tariff. Parties who conflate the two frameworks risk underestimating their exposure.
What cross-border complications affect foreign claimants in Poland?
Foreign claimants face three layers of additional complexity. The first is the security for costs mechanism. A non-EU claimant initiating proceedings before a Polish court may be required to lodge a security deposit (kaucja aktoryczna) covering the defendant's anticipated costs. The threshold is set by the court on application by the defendant and must be paid before the case proceeds. Failure to pay within the court-set deadline – typically 21 days – results in the claim being dismissed.
EU claimants are exempt from this requirement under the Brussels I Recast Regulation. However, the exemption applies to natural persons and companies domiciled in an EU member state. A UK-incorporated holding company with a Polish operating subsidiary is not automatically exempt post-Brexit. The Polish court will examine the claimant's registered seat, not the economic substance of the group. This has surprised several British-owned groups since 2021.
The second complication is enforcement of foreign cost orders in Poland. A Luxembourg or Italian court may award costs against a Polish defendant, but enforcing that award requires separate proceedings in Poland. Our article on enforcing a Luxembourg judgment in Poland sets out the step-by-step process, which applies equally to cost components of foreign judgments. Similarly, parties enforcing Italian judgments should review our guide on enforcing an Italian judgment in Poland.
The third complication involves sanctions compliance. A claimant subject to EU or US sanctions restrictions may find that cost recovery is complicated by the prohibition on making funds available to sanctioned counterparties. If the defendant is a sanctioned entity, the court's cost order in the claimant's favour may be unenforceable in practice – not because of any defect in the order, but because receiving payment from a sanctioned party triggers sanctions exposure. This intersection of litigation Warsaw practice and sanctions compliance is increasingly relevant for disputes with Russian or Belarusian counterparties.
We obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 3m for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026), where the underlying dispute involved a cost-recovery claim against a counterparty with indirect ties to a sanctioned entity. The interim measures froze unencumbered assets held by a non-sanctioned affiliate, preserving enforcement options while the sanctions position was clarified.
How does arbitration in Poland interact with civil court cost rules?
Arbitration Poland practice diverges sharply from civil court cost rules. Institutional arbitration before the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej) follows its own cost schedule, where the arbitral tribunal has wide discretion to award full legal costs without reference to the Ministry of Justice tariff. This is one of the most commercially significant differences between court and arbitration proceedings for high-value disputes.
In a commercial arbitration valued at PLN 5m, the tribunal may award the winning party's actual legal fees in full – PLN 300,000 or more – if the arbitration agreement and applicable rules so permit. The same dispute before a civil court would yield a tariff-capped recovery of approximately PLN 25,200 at first instance. The arithmetic makes arbitration clauses economically rational for any dispute likely to exceed PLN 200,000 in claim value.
There is a wrinkle, however. Arbitral awards on costs are enforced through the civil courts. The party seeking enforcement must apply to the district court for an enforcement clause (klauzula wykonalności). The court does not re-examine the merits of the cost award, but it will refuse enforcement if the award violates Polish public policy. Awards granting costs that appear punitive or disproportionate have occasionally been challenged on this ground, though successfully only in rare cases.
The interaction between arbitration cost orders and civil court proceedings also arises in set-aside applications. If a party seeks to set aside an arbitral award before the Appeal Court, the cost order in the set-aside proceedings follows the civil court tariff – not the arbitral tribunal's broader discretion. A party that wins the set-aside application recovers only tariff-capped fees, even if it spent significantly more defending the award.
What strategic choices maximise cost recovery in Polish proceedings?
The single most important strategic decision is claim framing. Because court fees are calculated on the stated claim value, over-claiming inflates the claimant's upfront cost without improving the tariff cap on attorney's fees. A claim of PLN 2m and a claim of PLN 1.8m generate identical attorney's fee caps under the current tariff schedule, but the court fee difference is PLN 10,000. Calibrating the claim value precisely – neither over-claiming nor under-claiming – is a material cost decision, not a cosmetic one.
The second strategic choice is procedural conduct. Courts have discretion to impose full costs on a party whose conduct prolonged proceedings unnecessarily. Filing multiple unfounded motions, requesting repeated adjournments, or submitting voluminous irrelevant evidence all risk triggering an adverse cost order even for the ultimately winning party. Conversely, a claimant who demonstrates efficient, focused litigation conduct strengthens the argument for above-minimum attorney's fees.
Third, the timing of settlement affects cost allocation. A settlement concluded before the first hearing typically results in the court refunding 75 percent of the court fee. A settlement after the first hearing but before judgment refunds 50 percent. These refund thresholds create structured incentives for early resolution. A dispute lawyer advising a client to "wait and see" past the first hearing forfeits a material financial benefit without a corresponding litigation advantage.
- File a detailed cost breakdown (spis kosztów) before the final hearing – courts will not award undocumented items
- Request above-minimum attorney's fees in writing, with specific reference to case complexity and opponent's conduct
- Preserve all translation and expert invoices – these are recoverable only with documentation
- Monitor settlement refund windows: 75% before first hearing, 50% before judgment
Foreign investors should also note that employing foreign nationals who may act as witnesses or company representatives in Polish proceedings involves separate procedural considerations. Our guide on hiring foreign nationals in Poland addresses the documentation requirements that can affect a company's procedural standing.
What is the outlook for cost recovery reform in Polish civil proceedings?
The Ministry of Justice tariff has not been substantively revised since 2015. In the intervening decade, commercial legal fees in Poland have risen substantially. The gap between real cost and recoverable cost has widened. Legislative proposals to index the tariff to average market rates have been discussed in the academic and bar association community, but no draft legislation has been introduced as of early 2026. The practical consequence is that cost recovery remains a partial remedy, and parties who litigate expecting full indemnity will be disappointed.
The Supreme Court of Poland has incrementally expanded the circumstances in which courts may depart upward from the tariff minimum. Recent jurisprudence has recognised that case complexity, the volume of evidence, and the number of hearings are all relevant factors. This judicial trend does not replace legislative reform, but it does give well-prepared parties a meaningful argument for enhanced recovery in complex disputes.
Digital court proceedings, introduced experimentally since 2023 and expanded in 2025, have reduced some procedural costs – particularly travel and document handling. Electronic filing is now standard in commercial cases before Regional Courts. The cost implications are modest but real: a party that submits all documents electronically and avoids in-person hearings reduces its non-tariff costs, improving the net recovery ratio even without any change to the tariff itself.
Looking at the broader pattern: Polish courts are handling commercial disputes faster than five years ago, with average first-instance duration in Warsaw commercial courts falling from approximately 24 months to closer to 18 months in straightforward cases. Faster proceedings reduce the financing cost of outstanding claims and improve the real value of eventual cost orders. For foreign investors assessing dispute risk in Poland, this trajectory matters as much as the tariff structure itself.
Specific situations require tailored analysis. A company entering litigation above PLN 500,000, facing a counterparty with cross-border assets, or considering whether to arbitrate rather than litigate faces a set of cost decisions that compound over the life of the dispute. Getting the initial framing right – claim value, forum, procedural strategy – determines the cost recovery ceiling before the first hearing is even scheduled.
To receive an expert assessment of your cost recovery position in Polish proceedings, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Can a winning party recover the full legal fees it actually paid to its lawyers?
A: Generally, no. Polish civil courts apply a Ministry of Justice tariff that caps recoverable attorney's fees based on the dispute value, not the fees actually charged. For commercial disputes above PLN 100,000, the tariff-capped amount is typically a fraction of market-rate fees. Courts may award above the tariff minimum in complex or prolonged cases, but exceeding the tariff maximum requires exceptional circumstances and is rare in practice.
Q: How long does it take to obtain a cost order and enforce it?
A: A cost order is typically included in the final judgment. Enforcement requires obtaining an enforcement clause from the district court, which takes approximately 14 to 21 days if unopposed. The debtor then has an opportunity to voluntarily pay before the bailiff is engaged. In straightforward cases, from judgment to actual payment takes between one and three months. Cross-border enforcement against assets in another jurisdiction adds a further procedural layer and a separate timeline.
Q: Is it a misconception that arbitration always produces higher cost recovery than court proceedings?
A: Yes, partly. Institutional arbitration in Poland does allow tribunals to award full legal costs without the Ministry of Justice tariff. However, arbitration itself carries higher upfront administrative and arbitrator fees, which are not always fully recoverable. For disputes below PLN 200,000, the cost economics often favour court proceedings. Above that threshold, particularly in complex multi-party disputes, arbitration's unrestricted cost discretion typically produces better net recovery for the winning party.
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 dispute resolution. 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.