A Warsaw technology company enters a high-value contract dispute. The opposing party submits a technical report prepared by its own specialist. Without a formally appointed court expert, the company's legal team has no procedural tool to challenge that report effectively. The window to request a court-appointed expert closes – and the opportunity to shape the evidentiary record is lost.
In Polish civil proceedings, a court-appointed expert witness (biegły sądowy) is a specialist listed on the register maintained by the President of the relevant Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The court appoints the expert by formal decision; parties may propose candidates but cannot select them unilaterally. The expert's written opinion carries significant evidential weight, and challenging it requires a separate procedural step – a request for a supplementary opinion or a second expert – which must be filed within the deadline set by the court.
This guide explains how the expert-witness procedure works in Poland, step by step. It covers how experts are appointed, how opinions are challenged, what the process costs and how long it takes, and what mistakes most often derail cases involving technical evidence. Three business scenarios illustrate how the procedure plays out in practice for manufacturing, IT, and foreign-investor cases.
How are expert witnesses appointed in Polish proceedings?
The court appoints a biegły sądowy either on its own initiative or on a party's motion. The appointment is made by procedural decision, which names the expert, defines the scope of the opinion, and sets a deadline – typically 30 to 90 days. The expert must be on the register of the relevant Regional Court (National Court Register, KRS, maintains the official court register separately) or, for specialist matters, may be appointed from outside the register if no listed expert holds the required qualifications.
Parties wishing to propose a candidate should file a written motion before the court issues its own appointment. The motion must identify the expert by name and registration number, explain the proposed scope of the opinion, and demonstrate why that particular specialist is needed. Courts are not bound to follow the proposal, but a well-reasoned motion increases the likelihood of acceptance. Missing this window forfeits the ability to shape who examines the technical evidence.
The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) and other regulatory bodies sometimes provide specialist testimony in financial cases, though this is treated differently from a standard expert appointment. For arbitration Poland proceedings seated in Warsaw, the parties may agree on an expert privately; in state-court litigation, the formal register process applies.
- File a motion to appoint a specific expert before the court acts on its own.
- Define the scope of questions precisely – vague questions produce vague opinions.
- Check the expert's registration status with the relevant Regional Court.
- Note the deadline set in the appointment decision – it governs the entire timeline.
- Confirm whether the expert requires an advance payment deposit before starting work.
We secured a reversal of a technical liability finding worth over PLN 3.5m for a manufacturing client in the Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The outcome turned on a timely motion to appoint a specialist outside the standard register, filed before the court defaulted to a generalist expert.
What does the expert opinion procedure look like in practice?
Once appointed, the expert receives the case files and any physical evidence. The standard written opinion must be delivered within the deadline specified in the appointment decision – often 60 days for straightforward matters, and up to six months for complex construction or financial cases. The expert may request an extension, but the court must approve it. Unjustified delay may result in a fine imposed on the expert, though in practice courts are lenient with extensions.
After the written opinion is filed, both parties receive a copy and have the right to submit written questions or objections. This is the critical intervention point. A party that fails to raise specific objections within the court-set deadline – often 14 days – may lose the procedural basis to challenge the opinion at a later stage. A dispute lawyer reviewing the opinion should focus on whether the expert exceeded the defined scope, relied on facts not in the record, or applied an incorrect methodology.
The court may then call the expert to a hearing for oral examination. This is especially common in construction disputes and insolvency proceedings timeline cases where the expert's reasoning needs to be tested under questioning. For a cross-border scenario involving a German investor's subsidiary in Lower Silesia, our team obtained interim measures protecting assets worth over EUR 4m (spring 2026) – the expert's oral testimony at the hearing proved decisive in establishing the valuation basis.
If objections are well-founded, the court may order a supplementary opinion from the same expert or appoint a second expert. Two conflicting expert opinions place the court in the position of choosing between them, which it must justify in writing. This dynamic gives the party that identified the methodological flaw a significant advantage in the final judgment.
How much does an expert witness cost, and how long does the process take?
Expert fees in Polish civil proceedings are regulated. The court sets the fee based on the complexity of the task, the time spent, and the expert's hourly rate as approved by the Ministry of Justice. For a standard accounting or financial opinion, fees typically range from PLN 1,500 to PLN 8,000. Complex construction or engineering opinions in large disputes can reach PLN 50,000 or more. The party that requested the expert – or the party ordered by the court to advance costs – deposits the estimated fee before work begins. Final fees are adjusted after the opinion is delivered.
Timeline depends heavily on the expert's workload and the complexity of the matter. A simple valuation opinion may be ready in 30 days. A multi-disciplinary construction defect analysis can take 12 months or longer. Courts rarely enforce deadlines strictly against experts, so parties should treat official deadlines as aspirational rather than firm. Building timeline buffers into litigation strategy is standard practice for a dispute lawyer handling cases in Warsaw.
Cost allocation follows the general rule: the losing party bears the expert costs as part of the overall litigation costs awarded by the court. However, if a party's own conduct – such as submitting incomplete documentation – caused unnecessary expert work, the court may apportion costs differently. For KIO appeal proceedings before the National Appeals Chamber (Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza), expert costs are handled under a separate, accelerated regime with a 15-day decision window.
What mistakes most often undermine cases involving expert evidence?
The most common error is treating the expert opinion as a formality rather than a strategic document. Parties that accept the first opinion without scrutiny – even when the methodology is questionable – lose the chance to request a supplementary or second opinion. Polish procedural law does not allow unlimited challenges; once the court closes the evidentiary stage, new expert motions are inadmissible. This is an irreversible consequence of passive case management.
A second frequent mistake is framing questions too broadly. An expert asked to "assess the quality of construction work" will produce a general report. An expert asked to "determine whether the waterproofing layer applied at foundation level met the technical specifications in Annex 3 of the contract" produces an opinion that directly addresses the contested issue. Precision in the scope of appointment is a litigation Warsaw best practice that most clients underestimate.
Third, parties sometimes ignore the sanctions compliance dimension when financial experts are involved. If the underlying transaction is subject to sanctions screening – as is increasingly the case in cross-border disputes involving CIS counterparties – the expert's access to transaction documentation may raise regulatory questions. Coordinating with the firm's sanctions compliance practice before disclosing documents to the expert is a step that foreign investors in particular should not skip.
What to prepare before requesting an expert appointment:
- A precise list of technical questions the expert must answer.
- All relevant contracts, specifications, and correspondence organised chronologically.
- An advance estimate of expert fees to deposit with the court.
- Identification of the expert's registration number and area of specialisation.
Parties relying solely on a privately commissioned report – rather than a court-appointed expert – face a structural disadvantage. Private reports are admissible as documentary evidence, but they carry less weight than a court-appointed opinion and cannot substitute for one in proceedings where technical facts are genuinely disputed.
For foreign investors entering Polish litigation, understanding the difference between biegły sądowy and a privately retained specialist is foundational. Our guide on dispute resolution for Netherlands companies doing business in Poland sets out the broader procedural context that shapes how expert evidence is used in cross-border cases.
Parties managing parallel insolvency proceedings should also review the insolvency proceedings timeline from filing to closure, where expert valuations of the debtor's assets frequently determine creditor recovery rates.
If your company is involved in a dispute where technical evidence is contested, the specific steps taken in the first 30 days of the evidentiary phase will determine whether the expert record supports or undermines your position. Delay in filing a motion for a court-appointed expert precludes the remedy entirely once the evidentiary stage closes.
To receive an expert assessment of your evidentiary strategy, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.
Frequently asked questions
Q: Can a party reject a court-appointed expert on grounds of bias?
A: Yes. Polish civil procedure allows a party to challenge an expert on the same grounds as a judge – including personal interest in the outcome, prior involvement in the matter, or a relationship with one of the parties. The challenge must be filed before the expert submits the opinion. A challenge filed after the opinion is delivered is generally inadmissible unless the grounds for bias were discovered only after delivery.
Q: How long does it typically take to obtain a court-appointed expert opinion in a commercial dispute?
A: For a standard financial or accounting matter, expect 60 to 90 days from the appointment decision. Construction and engineering opinions routinely take six to twelve months. Courts set formal deadlines in the appointment decision, but extensions are common. Parties should factor this timeline into any settlement negotiations, since a delayed opinion can extend overall proceedings by a year or more.
Q: Is a private expert report sufficient to win a technical dispute in Polish courts?
A: A privately commissioned report is admissible as a document, not as an expert opinion in the procedural sense. It can support a party's arguments and may persuade the court to appoint a court expert on a specific issue. However, when the opposing party contests technical facts, only a court-appointed biegły sądowy opinion carries the procedural weight needed to resolve the dispute definitively. Relying exclusively on a private report in a contested technical case is a significant strategic risk. For Cyprus-based investors facing this situation in Polish proceedings, our guide on dispute resolution for Cyprus companies doing business in Poland explains how foreign parties can navigate evidentiary procedures effectively.
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.