Dispute resolution for United States companies doing business in Poland

A mid-sized technology distributor incorporated in Delaware discovered, eighteen months into a Polish distribution agreement, that its local partner had diverted product allocations to an undisclosed third party. The contract contained a Warsaw arbitration clause. The American company had no Polish legal counsel, no familiarity with the National Court Register (KRS), and a limitation clock already running. The question was not whether to act – it was how quickly.

United States companies operating in Poland have access to two principal dispute resolution tracks: litigation before Polish civil courts and arbitration before institutions such as the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (SA KIG). The choice between them affects cost, timeline, and enforceability across borders. A poorly chosen forum can forfeit interim protection or preclude recovery entirely if assets are moved before a judgment is obtained.

This case study traces the steps taken in an anonymised matter involving a US technology distributor and a Polish counterpart. It covers the strategic choices made at each stage, the procedural milestones reached, and the lessons that transfer to any American company entering or already operating in the Polish market.

What was the background, and how was the dispute framed?

The client – a Delaware-registered distributor with a regional hub in Mazowieckie – had entered a three-year exclusive distribution agreement with a Warsaw-based trading company. After roughly 18 months, an internal audit flagged a pattern of short deliveries and parallel sales to a competitor. The estimated loss exceeded PLN 1.4 million. The Polish counterpart denied liability and threatened a counterclaim for alleged contractual penalties.

The first task was framing. Polish civil procedure distinguishes sharply between contractual claims and tort claims. The choice of legal basis shapes which court has jurisdiction, what evidence is admissible, and how damages are calculated. Under Polish civil law, a contractual claim for non-performance carries a three-year limitation period. That period had been running since the first provable diversion – roughly 14 months before the client retained us. Time was tight but workable.

We filed a request for interim measures before the District Court in Warsaw (Sąd Okręgowy w Warszawie) within the first week of instruction. Under Polish civil procedure, a creditor may obtain a freezing order before or during proceedings, provided it demonstrates a plausible claim and a real risk that enforcement will otherwise be frustrated. The court granted a partial freeze on the counterpart's bank account within 72 hours – securing roughly PLN 800,000 pending the arbitration outcome.

What strategy did the dispute resolution team adopt?

Three strategic decisions shaped the entire matter. First, we elected to proceed before the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce rather than the state courts. The arbitration clause in the agreement permitted this. SA KIG proceedings typically conclude within 12 to 18 months for commercial disputes of this scale – materially faster than the average five-year timeline before overloaded state courts. Second, we immediately requested document preservation from the counterpart, referencing obligations under the agreement. Third, we assessed whether any of the diverted product had been supplied to entities subject to European Union sanctions – a live concern given the client's US origin and the nature of the technology involved.

On the sanctions point, the client's products fell within dual-use categories monitored by Polish export control authorities. We conducted a rapid review against the EU consolidated sanctions list. No prohibited end-users were identified, but the review surfaced a gap in the client's internal compliance documentation – a gap that could have complicated the arbitration had the counterpart raised it as a defence. We closed that gap before the first arbitral hearing. For background on how EU sanctions interact with Polish business operations, see our analysis of the EU sanctions framework and its impact on Polish businesses.

We also mapped the counterpart's asset base through KRS filings and land registry searches. This intelligence informed the scope of the interim freeze application and gave the client a realistic picture of recovery prospects before committing to full arbitration costs.

How did the process unfold, and what were the key milestones?

The arbitration proceeded in four identifiable phases. The statement of claim was filed within six weeks of instruction, claiming PLN 1.4 million in lost margin plus contractual interest running from the date of each diversion. The counterpart filed its answer and counterclaim – for PLN 320,000 in alleged penalties – within the SA KIG's standard 30-day response window.

We secured a reversal of the counterpart's penalty counterclaim in full for the client in Mazowieckie (autumn 2025). The tribunal found that the penalty clause invoked by the counterpart was unenforceable because it had not been triggered by written notice within the contractually prescribed period. That procedural point eliminated nearly a quarter of the counterpart's exposure claim before any merits hearing.

The evidentiary hearing lasted two days. Polish arbitration procedure allows witness examination in a manner broadly familiar to US litigators – direct examination, cross-examination, and tribunal questions. The key witness was the client's regional sales manager, whose testimony corroborated the audit findings with delivery records obtained through pre-hearing disclosure. The tribunal issued its award within three months of the hearing, granting PLN 1.2 million to the client – roughly 86 percent of the claimed amount – plus costs.

Enforcement of the award required a brief exequatur procedure before the District Court in Warsaw. The court confirmed the award's enforceability within 45 days. The frozen funds were released to the client shortly thereafter. The entire matter – from first instruction to recovered funds – took 22 months.

What lessons transfer to other United States companies in Poland?

Four lessons stand out. First, interim measures are available and effective in Poland, but they must be sought immediately. Assets move fast. A delay of even four to six weeks can mean the difference between a secured claim and an empty judgment. Second, the choice of forum matters as much as the merits. Arbitration before SA KIG offered speed and confidentiality that state court litigation could not match for a matter of this size.

• File for interim measures within days, not weeks, of identifying a dispute.
• Verify the enforceability of any penalty or liquidated-damages clause before relying on it.
• Run a sanctions compliance check early – it can surface defences the counterpart might exploit.
• Map counterpart assets through KRS and land registry before committing to proceedings.
• Budget 18 to 24 months for arbitration from filing to enforcement.

Third, US companies should be aware that Polish procedural rules differ from both federal and state court practice. There is no discovery in the US sense. Document production is narrower and tribunal-directed. Witness statements are submitted in writing before the hearing. Adapting litigation strategy to these features – rather than importing US assumptions wholesale – is essential. For technology-sector clients, IP-related disputes carry additional considerations covered in our US-facing IP and technology practice.

Fourth, cross-border enforcement planning should begin before a dispute arises. Poland is a party to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which means a Polish arbitral award is enforceable in the United States – and vice versa. For companies that may need to enforce a judgment rather than an arbitral award, the procedural landscape is more complex. Our step-by-step guide to enforcing a foreign judgment in Poland illustrates the exequatur process in a comparable cross-border context.

One final observation: the client in this matter had no prior relationship with a Polish dispute resolution lawyer. That gap cost them six weeks of reaction time at the outset. US companies with material Polish exposure – whether through distribution agreements, joint ventures, or procurement contracts – should establish counsel relationships before a dispute emerges, not after.

For a tailored strategy on dispute resolution in Poland, reach out to info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: How long does commercial arbitration in Poland typically take?

A: Proceedings before the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce generally take between 12 and 18 months for mid-sized commercial disputes. Complex matters with multiple parties or voluminous documentary evidence may extend to 24 months. State court litigation in Warsaw typically runs significantly longer – often four to six years at first instance and appeal combined.

Q: Can a US company obtain interim asset protection in Poland before arbitration is concluded?

A: Yes. Polish civil procedure allows a claimant to apply for a freezing order or other interim measure from the state courts even when the underlying dispute is referred to arbitration. The applicant must demonstrate a plausible claim and a real risk that enforcement will be frustrated without the measure. Courts can grant interim orders within 72 hours in urgent cases, though a deposit or security may be required.

Q: Is a Polish arbitral award enforceable in the United States?

A: Poland and the United States are both parties to the New York Convention, which provides the framework for mutual recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. A Polish award can be enforced against assets located in the United States through proceedings in the relevant federal district court. Grounds for refusal are narrow and do not include a general review of the merits. Enforcement timelines vary by jurisdiction but are generally shorter than re-litigating the underlying dispute.

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 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.