A Mazowieckie-based IT services company was locked in a contract dispute with a public-sector client worth PLN 3.4 million. Litigation in the Warsaw District Court would have taken an estimated 30 to 36 months. The commercial relationship – and a pipeline of future contracts – hung in the balance. Both sides wanted resolution. Neither wanted a judgment.

Mediation in Poland offers a structured, confidential alternative to court proceedings for business disputes. Under Polish civil procedure law, parties may refer a matter to mediation at any stage – before filing a claim or after proceedings begin – with the court required to suspend litigation once mediation is initiated. A successful agreement reached through a court-approved mediator carries the same enforcement weight as a court judgment after judicial ratification, typically obtained within 14 days of submission.

This case study traces how that IT company resolved its dispute in under 90 days, the strategic choices made at each stage, and the conditions under which mediation delivers better outcomes than arbitration or litigation in Poland. The lessons apply to manufacturing, technology, and foreign-investor contexts alike.

What was the background to the dispute?

The contract covered software implementation for a regional public authority. Delivery was delayed by scope changes initiated by the client. The supplier claimed additional fees of PLN 3.4 million; the client withheld final payment and threatened contractual penalties. Both parties had strong arguable positions. That symmetry – (rarely acknowledged in litigation strategy) – is precisely the condition under which mediation tends to outperform court proceedings.

The company approached our disputes team in autumn 2025. A preliminary assessment identified three parallel risks. First, a court judgment in favour of the client would trigger a contractual penalty clause, potentially doubling the exposure. Second, a public-sector counterparty would likely appeal any adverse first-instance ruling, extending the timeline to five or more years. Third, the client had indicated, informally, willingness to discuss a structured settlement – a signal that experienced practitioners learn to take seriously.

We recommended mediation under the auspices of the Sąd Polubowny przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej (Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce, KIG). The KIG mediation centre maintains a roster of accredited commercial mediators and operates under procedural rules aligned with European Mediation Directive standards. The centre's standard fee schedule caps initial costs at approximately PLN 15,000 for disputes in this value range – a fraction of projected litigation costs.

  • Dispute value: PLN 3.4 million
  • Estimated litigation timeline: 30–36 months
  • Mediation completed: under 90 days
  • Mediation cost: approximately PLN 15,000

What strategy did we apply and why?

The strategic choice between mediation, arbitration, and litigation in Poland turns on four variables: timeline pressure, relationship value, evidentiary complexity, and enforceability needs. Where all four favour settlement, mediation is almost always the correct instrument. This matter met all four criteria. We also considered a Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (National Appeals Chamber, KIO) appeal route – relevant because public procurement rules were embedded in the contract – but concluded that the KIO appeal mechanism addressed procedure rather than the underlying commercial claim.

We prepared a mediation brief covering the factual sequence of scope changes, the contractual basis for additional fees, and a quantified range of acceptable outcomes. The brief was not filed with the court – mediation communications are confidential under Polish civil procedure law and cannot be used as evidence in subsequent proceedings. That protection is significant. It allows parties to make realistic offers without prejudicing their litigation position should mediation fail.

We also coordinated a sanctions compliance check before finalising the agreement structure. The public-sector client received partial funding through a KPO-linked grant, which introduced EU funds compliance requirements into the settlement mechanics. Any payment arrangement needed to be structured so that it did not trigger clawback provisions under the grant conditions. This step added two weeks to preparation but prevented a material post-settlement risk.

How did the mediation process unfold?

The parties signed a mediation agreement within 10 days of our initial recommendation. The KIG centre appointed a mediator within a further seven days – a retired commercial judge with technology-sector experience. Three sessions were held over six weeks. The first session focused on interests rather than positions: both sides articulated what a good outcome would look like in commercial terms, not legal terms. That reframing is where mediation earns its value.

The agreed terms were submitted to the Warsaw District Court for ratification. Judicial approval was granted in 12 days. The ratified settlement has the enforcement status of a court judgment. Had the client defaulted, enforcement through a komornik sądowy (court bailiff) would have been available immediately – without further litigation. This matters for cross-border contexts too: a ratified Polish mediation settlement is enforceable in EU member states under the same framework that governs foreign judgments, as set out in our guide on enforcing a Slovakia judgment in Poland.

What are the transferable lessons for business disputes in Poland?

Mediation works when both sides have something to lose from prolonged proceedings. That condition is more common than clients initially assume. A dispute lawyer assessing a matter for mediation suitability should ask three questions: Is the relationship worth preserving? Is the evidentiary outcome uncertain? Is the litigation timeline commercially damaging? A "yes" to any two of the three is a strong indicator for mediation over arbitration Poland practitioners might default to for high-value matters.

Foreign investors face an additional consideration. Litigation in Warsaw district courts requires Polish-language submissions and generates judgments that must be translated and recognised abroad. Mediation agreements, by contrast, can be drafted bilingually and ratified in a form that travels more cleanly across jurisdictions. For a German investor's subsidiary, for instance, a bilingual settlement ratified by a Warsaw court resolves both the dispute and the enforceability question in a single step. Sanctions compliance screening – particularly relevant where counterparties involve state-linked entities – should be completed before any settlement is signed; see our note on sanctions screening obligations for Polish companies.

Three conditions consistently predict mediation failure in Polish commercial disputes. First, where one party has a dominant litigation position and knows it. Second, where the dispute involves a question of legal principle that only a court can resolve. Third, where the counterparty is using mediation as a delay tactic rather than a genuine settlement mechanism – a pattern identifiable within the first session if the mediator is experienced.

  • Identify mediation suitability early – ideally before filing a claim
  • Choose a mediator with sector-specific experience, not just legal credentials
  • Prepare a confidential mediation brief with a quantified settlement range
  • Complete EU funds and sanctions compliance checks before finalising terms
  • File for judicial ratification within 14 days of signing the agreement

The IT sector dispute described here is not exceptional. Similar dynamics arise in construction, supply-chain, and joint-venture contexts across Poland. What changes is the sector-specific knowledge required to assess evidentiary strength and to structure a settlement that holds. That assessment is where specialist advice pays for itself.

Specific facts of your matter will determine whether mediation, arbitration, or litigation is the right instrument – and the wrong choice forfeits both time and commercial relationships that cannot be recovered after proceedings begin.

To discuss whether mediation is the right strategy for your dispute in Poland, contact info@kordeckipartners.com. Our disputes team will assess your matter, identify the optimal forum, and manage the process from initial brief to judicial ratification.

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, mediation, arbitration, and litigation. 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.