A German infrastructure investor's Polish subsidiary had reached a breaking point. The general contractor on a road-adjacent logistics facility in Lower Silesia had submitted a variation claim exceeding PLN 8m, citing unforeseen ground conditions. The employer rejected it outright. Within weeks, the contractor suspended works, and both sides were facing a dispute that threatened to derail a EUR 40m project.

FIDIC contracts used in Poland activate a tiered dispute resolution process: the engineer's determination first, then the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB), and finally arbitration or litigation. Polish law governs the underlying construction contract, while the Kodeks cywilny (Civil Code, KC) and the Prawo budowlane (Construction Law Act, CLA) set mandatory rules that sit alongside FIDIC's own procedures. Failure to follow each tier in sequence – and within strict FIDIC time limits – can forfeit a party's right to pursue the claim entirely.

This case study traces how we approached that dispute on behalf of the employer, what procedural traps we identified early, and what lessons apply to any party entering a FIDIC-governed construction project in Poland.

What was the background to the dispute?

The project used the FIDIC Yellow Book (1999 edition) with bespoke amendments negotiated at contract close. The employer was a special-purpose vehicle registered in the National Court Register (KRS), wholly owned by the German parent. The contract engineer was a Polish-certified design-and-build supervisor appointed under the CLA. Works had been running for 14 months when the contractor submitted its variation notice.

The claim rested on two pillars. First, the contractor argued that geotechnical surveys provided in the tender documents were incomplete. Second, it claimed additional preliminaries running at roughly PLN 180,000 per month. Both arguments had surface plausibility. However, the contractor's notice arrived on day 31 after the alleged triggering event – one day beyond FIDIC's 28-day notice window. That single fact became the pivot of the entire case.

We were instructed by the employer six weeks after the contractor's suspension. By that point, the engineer had not yet issued a formal determination. The project timeline had slipped by approximately eight weeks, and the employer faced a penalty clause of EUR 15,000 per day for late delivery to the end-user tenant.

How did we structure the legal strategy?

Our immediate priority was the notice deadline. Under standard FIDIC Yellow Book terms, a contractor who fails to give notice within 28 days of becoming aware of an event loses the right to claim additional time or money. That is not merely procedural – it is a condition precedent. Polish courts have increasingly recognised this structure, treating it as a contractual limitation consistent with KC freedom-of-contract principles.

We prepared a detailed timeline mapping the contractor's own site diary entries against the claimed trigger date. The ground condition anomaly had been noted in an internal report dated 29 days before the formal notice. That gap was documented and submitted to the engineer as part of the employer's formal response.

We also identified a second vulnerability in the contractor's position. The bespoke contract amendments had modified the standard DAB clause to require mandatory mediation – with a 30-day cooling-off period – before any adjudication could be commenced. The contractor had skipped this step entirely and moved straight to a suspension of works, which itself constituted a breach under Polish construction law.

  • Establish the exact trigger date using contemporaneous site records
  • Verify whether bespoke amendments alter standard FIDIC time limits
  • Confirm the mandatory mediation or pre-DAB step before adjudication
  • Assess whether suspension of works was contractually justified
  • Identify any parallel obligations under Polish public procurement rules

We secured an interim order from the Regional Court in Wrocław preventing the contractor from drawing on the performance bond – worth PLN 4m – while the dispute was unresolved. That single measure stabilised the employer's cash position and removed the contractor's primary leverage. For clients investing in Polish real estate or infrastructure, understanding spatial planning constraints early is equally important: see our analysis of spatial planning and zoning rules in Poland.

What did the DAB process reveal?

Once the mandatory mediation period expired without agreement, the dispute moved to the DAB. The three-member board was constituted within 21 days – faster than average for Polish construction disputes, where board formation often takes 60 days or more. Piotr Malinowski served as the employer's nominated adjudicator.

We had secured a reversal of a comparable contractor bond-draw attempt exceeding PLN 3.5m for a logistics developer in Wielkopolska (autumn 2025). That experience shaped our approach to presenting the notice-deadline argument to the board. We led with documentary evidence rather than legal argument, letting the contractor's own records establish the timeline.

The DAB issued its decision within the 84-day window required under the contract. It dismissed the PLN 8m variation claim in full on notice-deadline grounds. It awarded the contractor a partial extension of time – 12 days – for a separate weather-related delay that had been properly notified. The employer's counter-claim for the suspension-related costs of approximately PLN 1.1m was upheld in part, with PLN 680,000 awarded.

The contractor issued a notice of dissatisfaction within the required 28-day window, preserving its right to take the matter to arbitration under the rules of the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, SA KIG). However, after receiving our analysis of the arbitration risk – including a cost exposure of EUR 120,000 in proceedings fees and a timeline of 18 to 24 months – the contractor elected not to pursue the matter further.

What are the transferable lessons for FIDIC users in Poland?

The 28-day notice rule is not a technicality. It is the single most frequently litigated issue in Polish FIDIC disputes, and it is the issue most often misunderstood by contractors and employers alike. Both sides tend to treat it as a formality. Courts and DABs increasingly do not. Parties entering construction contracts in Poland should treat every potential claim event as a clock-starting moment and build notice procedures into their contract management workflows from day one.

Bespoke amendments deserve the same scrutiny as the standard conditions. In this matter, the mediation pre-condition was buried in a schedule appended to the contract. It had been drafted by the employer's procurement team without legal review. That oversight nearly invalidated the employer's bond-protection application – the court initially questioned whether the dispute resolution process had been properly exhausted. Foreign investors structuring entry into the Polish market should apply the same rigour to construction contracts as to corporate documents. Our guide on buying property in Poland as a French national illustrates how layered Polish legal requirements can be for international parties.

Performance bonds are a tactical instrument, not just security. Moving quickly to protect the bond – before the contractor can draw – changes the negotiating dynamic entirely. That window is short. Under Polish banking practice, an on-demand bond can be called within three to five business days. Legal counsel needs to be in place before the dispute crystallises, not after.

Finally, the interaction between FIDIC's contractual framework and Polish mandatory law requires careful mapping. The KC imposes rules on contractual penalties, force majeure, and good-faith performance that cannot be excluded by agreement. The Polish Financial Supervision Authority (Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego, KNF) regulates bond-issuing institutions, which affects enforcement timelines. Workforce issues on site – subcontractor payment chains, posted-worker compliance – also intersect with construction disputes in ways that foreign employers rarely anticipate. Our overview of the remote work framework under Polish labour law touches on related compliance obligations that affect multinational project teams.

Every FIDIC dispute in Poland has a Polish law dimension. Treating the two as separate is the most common – and most expensive – mistake.

Your specific situation may carry irreversible consequences if the notice window or bond-call deadline passes without action. FIDIC time limits do not pause while parties seek legal advice.

To discuss how FIDIC dispute resolution applies to your construction contract in Poland, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. We will review your contract documents, map the applicable deadlines, and advise on immediate protective measures.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can a contractor in Poland recover a claim if it missed the 28-day FIDIC notice deadline?

A: In most cases, no. Polish courts and arbitral panels treat the 28-day notice requirement as a condition precedent under FIDIC contracts, meaning a late notice extinguishes the right to claim – not merely delays it. There is a narrow exception where the employer was independently aware of the event and suffered no prejudice, but this is difficult to establish and courts apply it sparingly. Contractors should treat the notice deadline as absolute and build internal alert systems to capture trigger events in real time.

Q: How long does a FIDIC DAB process typically take in Poland?

A: From the submission of a dispute to the DAB, the standard FIDIC Yellow Book allows 84 days for a decision. In practice, board constitution in Poland can add 30 to 60 days at the start, and complex multi-party disputes sometimes extend the process further by agreement. Parties should budget a minimum of four to six months from dispute submission to DAB decision, and a further 18 to 24 months if the matter proceeds to arbitration at the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce.

Q: Do bespoke FIDIC amendments override Polish mandatory law?

A: No. Bespoke amendments can modify most FIDIC default provisions between the parties, but they cannot override Polish mandatory rules under the Civil Code or the Construction Law Act. Contractual penalty clauses, for example, are subject to judicial reduction under Polish law regardless of what the contract says. Similarly, subcontractor payment protections under Polish construction legislation apply by operation of law and cannot be excluded by the main contract. Any bespoke amendment programme should include a mandatory-law audit by Polish-qualified counsel.

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 construction contracts, FIDIC disputes, and real estate transactions. 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.