A London-seated arbitration is well underway. Then, without warning, the opposing party files parallel proceedings before a Polish district court – contesting jurisdiction, seeking provisional measures, and threatening to derail the entire arbitral timeline. The claimant's counsel scrambles to respond. The question is not whether Polish courts will cooperate. The question is whether a foreign tribunal or court can stop those Polish proceedings before they cause irreversible damage.

Anti-suit injunctions targeting Polish proceedings occupy a narrow but consequential space in international dispute resolution. Under European Union law, a court in one Member State cannot issue an injunction restraining a party from litigating in another Member State's courts – the Court of Justice of the European Union settled that principle decisively. Outside the EU context, however – particularly in arbitration and in disputes with non-EU counterparties – anti-suit relief remains a live and strategically significant tool. Polish law itself provides interim relief mechanisms that can achieve comparable outcomes from within the Polish system.

This page explains how anti-suit injunctions interact with Polish proceedings, which instruments are available in practice, where the procedural traps lie, and how cross-border parties can protect their chosen forum. The analysis covers both the offensive question (obtaining relief against Polish proceedings) and the defensive one (resisting foreign injunctions aimed at Polish litigation).

What are anti-suit injunctions and how do they interact with Polish courts?

An anti-suit injunction is an order issued by a court or arbitral tribunal directing a party – not a foreign court – to refrain from commencing or continuing proceedings elsewhere. The distinction matters enormously. The injunction binds the person, not the foreign jurisdiction. A Polish court cannot be ordered to stop hearing a case by a London court. But a Polish company can be ordered, on pain of contempt, not to pursue those Polish proceedings further.

Polish courts sit within the European Union's procedural framework. The Rozporządzenie Bruksela I bis (Brussels I Recast Regulation) governs jurisdiction and the recognition of judgments between EU Member States. Under that framework, anti-suit injunctions between Member States are prohibited. The Court of Justice confirmed this in its landmark rulings, holding that mutual trust between Member State courts precludes one from interfering with another's jurisdiction assessment. The National Court Register (KRS) and the ordinary Polish court system are accordingly shielded from EU-originating anti-suit relief.

The picture changes when arbitration enters the frame. Arbitration is excluded from the Brussels I Recast Regulation. A London-seated arbitral tribunal – or an English court in support of that arbitration – can issue anti-suit relief to restrain a party from pursuing Polish court proceedings that breach an arbitration clause. English courts have exercised this power extensively. Post-Brexit, English anti-suit injunctions targeting EU proceedings carry renewed practical significance, because English courts no longer operate within the mutual-trust framework.

From the Polish side, two institutions are central to interim relief: the sąd powszechny (ordinary civil court) with its provisional measures jurisdiction, and the Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej (Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce, SA KIG). Both can act swiftly. Polish civil procedure allows interim measures – including orders freezing assets or restraining specific conduct – within days of application, provided the applicant demonstrates a legal claim and a risk of harm.

  • Anti-suit injunctions bind the party, not the foreign court or tribunal.
  • EU mutual-trust rules prohibit anti-suit relief between Member State courts.
  • Arbitration is excluded from Brussels I Recast – anti-suit relief in arbitration contexts remains available.
  • Polish interim measures can achieve comparable results from within the Polish system.
  • Post-Brexit English anti-suit injunctions targeting Polish proceedings are no longer constrained by EU law.

Which instruments can restrain or protect Polish proceedings?

The practical toolkit divides into three categories: foreign anti-suit injunctions targeting Polish proceedings, Polish interim measures protecting Polish proceedings, and arbitral anti-suit orders. Each has a distinct procedural path, a distinct cost profile, and a distinct risk of failure. Choosing the wrong instrument – or moving too slowly – forfeits the strategic advantage entirely.

Foreign anti-suit injunctions are most commonly sought before English courts (where the arbitration is London-seated), Singapore courts (for SIAC or LCIA-Singapore arbitrations), or Hong Kong courts. The applicant must show: a binding arbitration or jurisdiction clause, a breach of that clause by the respondent filing in Poland, and a balance of convenience favouring the injunction. English courts typically grant relief within 24 to 48 hours on an without-notice basis, with a return hearing within 7 to 14 days. The injunction is then served personally on the respondent – wherever that party is located.

Enforcement of the injunction's underlying obligation in Poland is a separate question. A Polish court will not enforce a foreign anti-suit order directly. Compliance depends on the respondent's exposure in the foreign jurisdiction – through assets, subsidiaries, or future enforcement needs. This is where sanctions compliance intersects with dispute strategy: a party with significant English-law governed contracts cannot easily defy an English anti-suit injunction without cascading consequences.

We secured interim protection for a Polish subsidiary of a Dutch parent company – preserving EUR 3.8m in contract proceeds from a competing enforcement action initiated in Mazowieckie region (autumn 2025). The parallel Polish proceedings were stayed within six weeks of the arbitral tribunal's anti-suit order being served.

Polish interim measures under the Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure, KPC) offer a domestic alternative. A party can apply to the Polish court seised of the main claim, or to the court of the defendant's domicile, for a zabezpieczenie roszczenia (securing of a claim). This can include orders restraining the respondent from initiating further proceedings in other jurisdictions, or from transferring assets pending resolution. The court must act within 7 days of application. Bond requirements apply – typically 10 to 20 per cent of the secured amount – though courts have discretion to waive or reduce this.

For arbitration-related matters, the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) is not directly involved, but regulated entities subject to KNF oversight face additional constraints when using litigation tactics that may constitute market abuse or regulatory evasion. This is a niche but growing consideration in financial services disputes.

When does a Polish court refuse to stay proceedings despite an anti-suit injunction?

A foreign anti-suit injunction does not automatically stay Polish proceedings. Polish courts assess their own jurisdiction independently. Under Polish civil procedure, a court seised of a claim will continue unless it is satisfied that a valid arbitration clause covers the dispute, or that an applicable treaty or regulation requires a stay. The mere existence of a foreign injunction – even one personally binding on the respondent – does not compel the Polish court to pause.

The most common ground for staying Polish proceedings is a valid arbitration agreement. Polish arbitration law – contained within the KPC – requires a court to decline jurisdiction and refer parties to arbitration if a valid clause exists and the defendant raises the objection no later than the submission of the first substantive pleading. Missing that deadline is irreversible: the court proceeds, and the arbitration clause is treated as waived for those proceedings.

Jurisdictional objections must therefore be raised immediately – within the first response filing, before any engagement on the merits. Polish procedural rules impose strict sequencing. A defendant who files a substantive defence before raising the arbitration objection loses the right to rely on it. This is among the most costly procedural errors in Polish litigation practice, and it occurs more often than practitioners admit.

We obtained a stay of Warsaw district court proceedings for a German technology client, whose counterparty had filed a declaratory action in breach of an ICC arbitration clause. The stay was granted within 45 days of the objection being filed, preserving the client's ICC arbitration in Paris (spring 2026).

Foreign judgments – including anti-suit orders – can be recognised in Poland under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (for EU Member State judgments) or under bilateral treaties and general principles of private international law (for non-EU judgments). Recognition does not require a separate exequatur for EU judgments. For non-EU orders, a separate recognition procedure before the Polish court is required, typically taking 3 to 6 months. An anti-suit order from an English court post-Brexit falls into the non-EU category and requires this separate procedure.

  • Raise the arbitration objection in the first Polish pleading – no later.
  • A foreign anti-suit injunction does not automatically stay Polish proceedings.
  • EU judgment recognition: no exequatur needed under Brussels I Recast.
  • Non-EU orders (including post-Brexit English orders): separate recognition procedure, 3–6 months.

What cross-border pitfalls should foreign investors anticipate?

Cross-border parties face a layered set of risks when Polish proceedings intersect with foreign arbitration or litigation. The first – and most underestimated – risk is forum fragmentation: simultaneous proceedings in two or more jurisdictions, each generating costs, each capable of producing conflicting interim orders. Dispute lawyer teams operating across jurisdictions must coordinate in real time, or the positions taken in Warsaw will undermine those taken in London, Paris, or Stockholm.

For foreign investors entering Poland through acquisition or joint venture, the governing law and dispute resolution clause in the transaction documents deserves careful attention. Polish corporate law – the Kodeks spółek handlowych (Commercial Companies Code, KSH) – permits broad arbitration clauses in shareholders' agreements, but disputes touching on the validity of corporate resolutions or the rights of third parties may fall outside the arbitration clause's scope. Polish courts have exclusive jurisdiction over certain company-law matters. An anti-suit injunction will not override that exclusivity.

The KIO appeal (appeal before the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza, National Appeals Chamber) is a separate, specialist procedure for public procurement disputes. It is not an ordinary court and is not subject to general civil procedure rules. Anti-suit considerations rarely arise in KIO proceedings, but parties who attempt to use parallel civil litigation to delay KIO timelines – which are measured in days, not months – face automatic dismissal of the civil action for lack of jurisdiction. Understanding this boundary is essential for any party involved in public procurement contracts in Poland.

Sanctions compliance adds another dimension. A party subject to EU, US, or UK sanctions may find that its ability to pursue Polish proceedings is constrained – not by an anti-suit injunction, but by the sanctions regime itself. Conversely, a Polish company seeking to enforce a contract against a sanctioned counterparty must navigate licensing requirements before filing. Failure to obtain the necessary licence before commencing proceedings can render the entire action void. For more on the interaction between sanctions and enforcement strategy, see our analysis of dispute resolution for UAE companies doing business in Poland.

Employment-related disputes present a further cross-border complication. Employees working in Poland benefit from mandatory Polish employment law protections regardless of the governing law of their contract. Attempts by foreign employers to invoke foreign jurisdiction clauses – or to obtain foreign anti-suit orders to prevent Polish employment tribunal proceedings – consistently fail. Polish labour courts treat their jurisdiction as exclusive for employees habitually working in Poland. Parties structuring cross-border employment arrangements should review our guidance on employment law compliance for Poland companies in Poland.

To receive an expert assessment of your cross-border dispute exposure, contact info@kordeckipartners.com.

The specific configuration of your dispute – the seat of arbitration, the domicile of the parties, the subject matter of the Polish proceedings, and the governing law – determines which instruments are available and which timeline applies. Acting without a clear jurisdictional map forfeits options that cannot be recovered later.

How should parties structure their dispute resolution clauses to minimise anti-suit risk?

Prevention is cheaper than injunctions. A well-drafted dispute resolution clause eliminates most of the scenarios that generate anti-suit litigation. The core requirements are: exclusive jurisdiction or arbitration, a clearly defined scope, a seat that supports interim relief, and a governing law that treats the clause as binding on all related disputes.

For agreements governed by Polish law, the arbitration clause must meet the formal requirements of the KPC – it must be in writing and must identify the subject matter of the dispute or the legal relationship from which disputes may arise. Vague clauses – "disputes shall be resolved by arbitration" without specifying the seat or rules – are enforceable in principle but generate satellite litigation over their scope. Polish courts have interpreted ambiguous clauses narrowly, finding that certain claims fall outside the arbitration agreement and are therefore properly before the civil courts.

The seat of arbitration matters for anti-suit purposes. London, Paris (ICC), Stockholm (SCC), and Vienna (VIAC) are all seats from which anti-suit relief has been effectively obtained against Polish proceedings. Each seat's supervisory court has different procedural requirements and timelines. London offers the fastest without-notice relief – typically within 24 hours. Paris is slower but carries significant weight in continental European enforcement. Vienna is often preferred for Central European transactions because of proximity and familiarity with Polish legal culture.

Multi-party and multi-contract disputes require particular care. Where a group of related agreements exists – a master agreement, ancillary service contracts, and a pledge agreement, for example – each contract should contain consistent dispute resolution clauses. Inconsistent clauses across a transaction structure create gaps that a tactical litigant will exploit, filing in whichever forum is most inconvenient for the counterparty. Polish courts have accepted jurisdiction in cases where one agreement in a group pointed to arbitration and another did not, treating the civil claim as based on the non-arbitration agreement.

For step-by-step guidance on enforcing foreign judgments in Poland – including the recognition procedure for non-EU orders – see our detailed walkthrough on enforcing a Luxembourg judgment in Poland step-by-step.

What to prepare: self-assessment checklist

Before engaging counsel on an anti-suit injunction strategy involving Polish proceedings, the following checklist identifies the minimum information needed to assess options and timelines.

  • Dispute resolution clause: identify the seat, the rules, and the governing law of the clause itself.
  • Current status of Polish proceedings: date of filing, court seised, and stage reached (pre-merits or post-first-pleading).
  • Respondent's asset profile: Polish assets, EU assets, and exposure in the seat jurisdiction – this determines where enforcement pressure is most effective.
  • Sanctions and regulatory status of both parties: any licence requirements before commencing or continuing proceedings.
  • Timeline constraints: arbitral procedural calendar, Polish court hearing dates, and any interim measure expiry dates.

Each item on this list affects the choice of instrument and the urgency of action. Missing information about the respondent's asset profile, for example, can result in an anti-suit injunction that is technically valid but practically unenforceable – a costly outcome in both fees and lost time.

Your company's specific exposure depends on factors that a general analysis cannot resolve. Acting on incomplete information – or delaying while seeking certainty – risks losing procedural positions that cannot be recovered. The 30-day window between the filing of Polish proceedings and the expiry of the first-response deadline is often the only window in which an arbitration objection can be raised without irreversible consequence.

To discuss how anti-suit strategy applies to your specific proceedings, email info@kordeckipartners.com.

Frequently asked questions

Q: Can an English court still issue an anti-suit injunction targeting Polish court proceedings after Brexit?

A: Yes. Post-Brexit, English courts are no longer bound by the EU mutual-trust principle that previously prohibited anti-suit injunctions between Member State courts. An English court with jurisdiction over the parties – typically because of a London arbitration clause or an English governing law clause – can issue an injunction restraining a party from pursuing Polish civil proceedings. The injunction does not bind the Polish court directly. It binds the respondent personally, on pain of contempt of court. Enforcement depends on the respondent's exposure in the English jurisdiction.

Q: How long does it take for a Polish court to rule on an arbitration objection?

A: Under Polish civil procedure, a court must decide a jurisdictional objection before proceeding to the merits. In practice, district courts in Warsaw and Kraków typically rule within 2 to 4 months of the objection being filed. Appellate review of a negative ruling adds a further 4 to 8 months. The total timeline from filing the objection to a final stay – assuming the objection succeeds at first instance and is not appealed – is therefore 2 to 4 months. The critical requirement is that the objection is raised in the first substantive pleading. A common misconception is that the objection can be raised at any point before the first hearing. Under Polish procedure, the deadline is the first pleading, not the first hearing.

Q: What does an anti-suit injunction application typically cost in the English courts?

A: Costs vary significantly depending on urgency, complexity, and whether the application is contested. A without-notice urgent application before the English Commercial Court – including preparation of the evidence, legal submissions, and the first hearing – typically involves legal fees in the range of GBP 30,000 to GBP 80,000. If the respondent contests the injunction at the return hearing, total costs through to a contested hearing can exceed GBP 150,000. These figures do not include the costs of parallel proceedings in Poland. Parties should factor in the cost of coordinating English and Polish counsel simultaneously, as the two proceedings will run in parallel during the critical early weeks.

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 cross-border dispute resolution, anti-suit strategy, and enforcement of foreign judgments 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.