A Warsaw-based trading company receives a formal demand letter from a supplier. The amount claimed exceeds PLN 500,000. The contract contains no arbitration clause. The board has 14 days to respond before the supplier files with the district court. That window closes faster than most managers expect.

Polish dispute resolution law offers companies two primary paths: state court litigation before the district or regional courts, and commercial arbitration before private tribunals such as the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, SA KIG). The choice of forum affects both timeline and cost. Court proceedings at first instance typically run 12 to 36 months; arbitration can conclude in 6 to 18 months depending on the rules chosen. Companies that miss procedural deadlines – including the 14-day response window in payment order proceedings – forfeit defences that cannot be reinstated.

This alert covers three immediate concerns: what has recently shifted in Polish dispute practice, which companies are most exposed, and what steps to take before a dispute escalates to litigation or arbitration in Poland.

What has changed in Polish dispute resolution practice?

Polish civil procedure has undergone significant revision over the past two years. The district courts (sądy rejonowe) and regional courts (sądy okręgowe) now apply stricter rules on the preclusion of evidence. A party that fails to submit all evidence at the first procedural stage risks losing the right to introduce it later. This is not a theoretical risk. It is a structural feature of the reformed Code of Civil Procedure (Kodeks postępowania cywilnego, KPC).

The National Court Register (Krajowy Rejestr Sądowy, KRS) has also tightened disclosure requirements for companies involved in commercial disputes. Counterparties can now access more corporate data earlier in proceedings. This matters for companies with complex ownership structures or cross-border affiliates. Sanctions compliance has added another layer: under EU sanctions regulations applicable in Poland, companies must verify that their counterparty is not a designated entity before initiating or settling a commercial claim. Failure to conduct that check can expose the company to regulatory liability independent of the dispute outcome.

The Public Procurement Office (Urząd Zamówień Publicznych, UZP) has also updated its guidance on KIO appeals – appeals before the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, KIO). The KIO appeal window remains 10 days from the date of the contracting authority's decision. Missing that deadline is irreversible. There is no mechanism to restore it.

Who is affected and what are the thresholds?

The reforms affect any company conducting commercial activity in Poland, but exposure varies by transaction size and sector. Under Polish civil procedure, claims above PLN 75,000 fall within the jurisdiction of regional courts (sądy okręgowe), which apply more demanding procedural rules than district courts. Companies regularly contracting above that threshold face a higher evidentiary burden from the outset of litigation.

We secured a reversal of a contractual penalty exceeding PLN 1.8m for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The opposing party had relied on the client's failure to object within the preclusion window. Early intervention – before the first hearing – preserved the defence entirely.

For public procurement, any supplier bidding on contracts above the EU thresholds (currently EUR 143,000 for supplies and services in the classic sector) must treat the 10-day KIO appeal window as a hard deadline. Missing it forfeits the right to challenge the award decision. That forfeiture cannot be undone by any subsequent court action.

Foreign companies operating through Polish subsidiaries face an additional exposure point. Enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland requires a separate recognition procedure. For EU judgments, Brussels I Regulation (recast) applies directly. For non-EU judgments – including those from Ukraine – a separate domestic recognition procedure applies. Our guide on enforcing a Ukraine judgment in Poland step by step sets out that procedure in detail. Similarly, companies with Italian counterparties should review enforcing an Italy judgment in Poland step by step before commencing cross-border recovery.

Labour cost exposure also intersects with dispute risk. Companies that have not adjusted employment contracts to reflect the 2026 minimum wage increase face potential claims from employees and enforcement actions by the State Labour Inspectorate. Our analysis of minimum wage 2026 impact on employer costs in Poland explains the thresholds and compliance steps.

What immediate action items apply?

The following steps apply to any company that has received a demand letter, a court summons, or a KIO notification in Poland. Act within the timeframes indicated – each deadline is statutory and non-extendable.

  • Respond to a payment order (nakaz zapłaty) within 14 days of service – failure to file objections converts the order into an enforceable title.
  • File a KIO appeal within 10 days of the contracting authority's decision – this window cannot be restored after expiry.
  • Submit all evidence and factual allegations at the first procedural stage – preclusion rules under the reformed KPC bar late submissions.
  • Conduct a sanctions compliance check on the counterparty before initiating or settling any commercial claim.
  • Verify whether the contract contains a valid arbitration clause – if it does, filing in state court may be stayed on the opponent's motion.

We obtained interim protective measures (zabezpieczenie roszczenia) preserving assets worth over EUR 3m for a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia (spring 2026). The application was filed within 48 hours of the dispute crystallising. Speed was the decisive factor.

Companies that have not yet reviewed their standard contracts for dispute resolution clauses should treat that review as urgent. An arbitration clause referencing SA KIG or the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (VIAC) gives the parties control over language, seat, and timeline. A missing or defective clause defaults the dispute to state court jurisdiction – with all the procedural constraints that follow.

Sanctions compliance deserves separate attention. Polish courts and the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) have both flagged cases where companies inadvertently transacted with sanctioned entities. Personal liability of board members can arise where the company's compliance framework was inadequate. That liability is not capped.

Specific situation of your company requires immediate assessment before any procedural deadline passes. Delay at this stage can permanently foreclose defences or enforcement options that remain available today.

If your company has received a demand, summons, or KIO notification – or if you are considering initiating a commercial claim in Poland above PLN 75,000 – contact info@kordeckipartners.com. We will assess your procedural position, identify applicable deadlines, and advise on forum selection within 24 hours of your instruction.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does commercial litigation in Poland typically take at first instance?

A: First-instance proceedings before a regional court in Warsaw currently average between 18 and 36 months, depending on the complexity of evidence and the number of witnesses. Simpler claims before district courts can conclude in 12 to 18 months. Arbitration before SA KIG typically runs 6 to 18 months under its standard rules. Timeline is one of the primary factors in forum selection.

Q: Can a foreign company go directly to arbitration in Poland without a prior arbitration clause?

A: No. Arbitration in Poland requires a written arbitration agreement concluded before or after the dispute arises. Without such an agreement, the dispute defaults to state court jurisdiction. A post-dispute submission agreement is legally valid under Polish law but requires the consent of both parties – which is rarely forthcoming once a dispute has crystallised.

Q: Is there a common misconception about the KIO appeal process?

A: Yes. Many companies assume that filing a complaint with the contracting authority extends or suspends the KIO appeal window. It does not. The 10-day period runs from the date of the contracting authority's decision, regardless of any informal complaint or correspondence. Companies that rely on informal objections and miss the statutory window lose the right to challenge the award decision permanently.

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 in Poland. 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.