A Warsaw-based trading company received a formal claim from a domestic supplier alleging non-payment of invoices worth over PLN 1.8 million. The supplier had already filed with the District Court in Warsaw. The debtor company's board had thirty days to respond before a default judgment could be issued – and the underlying contract contained an ambiguous jurisdiction clause that the opposing counsel intended to exploit.

Dispute resolution for companies incorporated and operating in Poland follows a structured path through the Polish civil justice system, with the District Courts (sądy okręgowe) and Regional Courts (sądy rejonowe) handling the majority of commercial claims. Companies may also elect arbitration under the rules of the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, SA KIG), or challenge public procurement decisions before the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO). The choice of forum shapes both timeline and cost from the outset.

This case study walks through a real, anonymised matter handled by our disputes team in Mazowieckie. It covers the background, the strategic choices made at each stage, the procedural steps taken, and the lessons that apply to any Polish company facing commercial litigation. The structure follows four phases: background, strategy, process, and transferable lessons.

What was the background to the dispute?

The client was a mid-sized Polish trading company with annual revenues exceeding PLN 20 million. Its supplier had delivered goods over twelve months under a framework agreement. A billing dispute arose in the final quarter: the client withheld payment on three invoices, citing defective delivery documentation. The supplier rejected that position and issued a formal demand. When no settlement was reached within thirty days, court proceedings commenced.

The contract contained a jurisdiction clause that named "the court competent for the registered office of the seller." The supplier's registered office had changed during the contract period. This created genuine ambiguity. The opposing counsel filed in the District Court in Warsaw – a forum that would have required the client to defend proceedings far from its own operational base in the Mazowieckie region. Challenging jurisdiction was the first strategic priority.

We also identified a counterclaim. The client had suffered measurable losses from the defective deliveries: storage costs, re-inspection fees, and lost margin on delayed resales. These losses exceeded PLN 380,000. Presenting a counterclaim changes the litigation dynamic. It shifts the opposing party from claimant to a party also at risk – and it opens settlement space that a pure defence does not.

What strategic decisions shaped the outcome?

Three decisions determined the trajectory of this matter. First, we filed a jurisdictional objection within the statutory fourteen-day window. Polish civil procedure requires such objections to be raised at the very first opportunity. Missing that window forfeits the right permanently – an irreversible consequence that many companies discover too late. The court agreed with our analysis and transferred the case to the court competent for the client's seat.

Second, we elected to pursue the counterclaim simultaneously rather than in separate proceedings. Consolidating claims in a single proceeding reduces court fees, avoids conflicting judgments, and concentrates the evidentiary record. The total value in dispute became PLN 2.18 million, which elevated the matter to the District Court's commercial division – a forum with judges experienced in contract and trade law.

Third, we assessed the arbitration option early. The SA KIG arbitration clause was not present in this contract, so state court proceedings were the only route. However, the assessment mattered: it confirmed there was no parallel forum that the opposing party could invoke to delay proceedings. For companies with arbitration clauses in their contracts, this step is non-negotiable. We have seen matters in Lower Silesia (winter 2025) where a party spent eight months in court before discovering a binding arbitration clause that rendered the proceedings void.

Sanctions compliance screening also featured. One of the supplier's directors appeared on an internal watch-list check. The screening confirmed no match – but the exercise is now standard in our pre-litigation intake for any matter with a cross-border dimension or where counterparties have CIS-linked ownership structures.

How did the process unfold?

After the jurisdictional transfer, the District Court set an initial hearing date approximately four months out. Polish commercial litigation timelines vary significantly by court and division. Warsaw's commercial courts carry heavy dockets; regional courts outside the capital can move faster. In this matter, the transfer to a regional court actually accelerated the schedule by roughly six weeks.

The evidentiary phase centred on delivery documentation. The opposing party submitted warehouse receipts. We retained an expert witness under the court's appointment procedure to assess whether the documentation met the contractual standard. Expert witness proceedings in Polish courts follow specific rules – the court appoints from a register, timelines for opinion delivery are set by order, and parties may submit written questions. For a detailed treatment of that procedure, see our analysis of expert witnesses in Polish court proceedings.

The expert's opinion supported the client's position on two of the three contested invoices. The third invoice was found to have been properly documented. That finding shaped the settlement range. We secured a negotiated resolution in the autumn of 2025: the client paid PLN 620,000 (the undisputed third invoice plus agreed costs), and the supplier withdrew its remaining claims. The counterclaim was settled separately at PLN 210,000 in the client's favour – a net outcome of PLN 1.17 million better than the original claim value.

Throughout the process, we monitored the matter against the pre-pack sale framework. Had the client's financial position deteriorated during proceedings, an accelerated asset-protection strategy would have been available. For background on that instrument, see our note on the pre-pack sale procedure and timeline in Poland.

What lessons transfer to other Polish companies?

Four lessons from this matter apply broadly. First, jurisdiction clauses deserve careful drafting and regular review. A clause that becomes ambiguous after a party changes its registered office is a clause that will be litigated. The cost of that ambiguity – here, a full jurisdictional challenge – is avoidable with a one-page amendment at the time of any structural change.

What to prepare before a commercial dispute reaches court:

  • All contract versions, including amendments and correspondence that modifies terms
  • Delivery and acceptance documentation for each disputed invoice
  • Internal communications showing when the dispute first arose
  • A record of any prior settlement discussions or payment proposals
  • A sanctions and ownership screen on the counterparty

Second, the counterclaim option should be assessed within the first week of receiving a claim. Polish civil procedure imposes timing constraints on when a counterclaim may be introduced. Acting early preserves optionality. Acting late forecloses it.

Third, expert witness strategy matters from day one. The party that frames the expert's mandate – through well-drafted written questions submitted to the court – often shapes the opinion's scope. Companies that engage disputes counsel only after the expert has been appointed lose that advantage.

Fourth, KIO appeal procedures operate on entirely different timelines. If your company participates in public procurement and faces a contracting authority decision, the appeal window before the National Appeals Chamber is ten days. Missing it precludes review. For companies operating across multiple jurisdictions, our note on dispute resolution for Cyprus companies doing business in Poland illustrates how foreign ownership structures affect procedural choices in Polish proceedings.

We obtained a favourable settlement for a manufacturing client in the Wielkopolska region (spring 2026), recovering over PLN 900,000 in a supply chain dispute where the opposing party had initially rejected all liability. Early counterclaim positioning and targeted expert framing were the decisive factors.

Specific situations require specific analysis. If your company has received a formal claim, is considering initiating proceedings, or is approaching a procedural deadline – the window to act is narrow and missing it carries permanent consequences.

To discuss how dispute resolution strategy applies to your matter, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does commercial litigation in Polish courts typically take?

A: Timeline depends heavily on the court, the complexity of evidence, and whether expert witnesses are required. A straightforward payment claim before a regional court outside Warsaw may conclude within twelve to eighteen months. Matters requiring expert opinions or jurisdictional challenges regularly extend to two to three years at first instance. Appellate proceedings before the Court of Appeal add a further twelve to twenty-four months.

Q: Is arbitration always faster than state court litigation in Poland?

A: This is a common misconception. Arbitration under SA KIG rules can conclude within twelve months for straightforward commercial disputes, but complex matters with multiple parties or substantial evidentiary phases can run just as long as court proceedings. Arbitration also carries higher upfront costs – registration fees and arbitrator fees are calculated on claim value. The choice depends on the contract, the counterparty, and the nature of the evidence.

Q: What is the court fee for filing a commercial claim in Poland?

A: Court fees in civil proceedings are set as a percentage of the claim value, subject to a statutory cap. For claims above PLN 20,000, the fee is five percent of the claim value. The cap for a single claim is PLN 200,000. Fee advances are paid at filing; the losing party typically bears the winner's costs, including legal fees, under the court's cost award.

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 dispute resolution, arbitration, and sanctions compliance. 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.