polish
print all cases print search results

search

search in range

case law

cases found: 375
sort: from newest / from oldest

Warsaw Court of Appeal judgment dated 21 November 2014 Case No. VI ACa 199/14

1. The arbitration court’s ignoring evidence offered by a party because it deemed the evidence to be unnecessary cannot be regarded as depriving the party of the possibility of defending its rights, and examination of the correctness of ignoring of the evidence by the arbitration court is impermissible because that would encroach on the merits of the case. … A party is deprived of the possibility of acting only when it has been totally deprived of the ability to defend its rights, and thus when it has found itself in a situation that prevents, and not only hinders or limits the support before the arbitration court of the demands asserted by the party.

2. Since the parties voluntarily submitted disputes arising out of the contract agreed between them to the judgment of the arbitral tribunal, aware of the limitations flowing therefrom, the petitioner cannot effective accuse the arbitral tribunal of not admitting evidence it raised, particularly in a situation where the arbitral tribunal exhaustively explained the reasons for denying the application.

3. Denial of an evidentiary application cannot be grounds for alleging that an award is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the legal order of the Republic of Poland. It should be stressed that the public policy clause, like any general clause, is indefinite, which leaves to the court considering a specific case a great degree of discretion; nonetheless, review on this basis of the elements comprising the ruling of the arbitral tribunal cannot assume the dimensions proper to a review of the merits (correctness) of the ruling. The prohibition of the review of the merits (correctness) of such ruling is connected with the essence of application of the public policy clause. In applying the clause, the point is not that the ruling being evaluated was consistent with all of the mandatorily applicable provisions of law entering into play, but that it did not exert an effect inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the national legal order.

Publication date: 21-11-2014 | Case no.: VI ACa 199/14

Key issues: petition to set aside arbitration award

id: 20416

Łódź Court of Appeal judgment dated 14 November 2014 Case No. I ACa 1084/14

1. It cannot be concluded from the principle of the autonomous will of the parties that the parties may freely depart from their earlier arrangements concerning the conditions for effective conclusion of transactions. This conclusion would actually result in violation of the autonomy of the parties and failure to respect their will. … A finding that currency hedging transactions were effectively concluded despite violation of the telephone identification procedure established by the parties’ contract could in fact violate another fundamental principle of civil law, namely the principle of the enforceability of contracts.

2. A petition to set aside an arbitration award is not an appellate instrument, but a type of extraordinary judicial review by the state court of the activity of the arbitration court. It follows that in the proceeding to set aside an arbitration award the state court cannot consider the dispute between the parties to the arbitration proceeding on the merits.

3. Violation of provisions of substantive law are subject to review in the proceeding initiated by a petition to set aside an arbitration award only the provisions violated establish principles of the public policy of the Republic of Poland, and the public policy clause should be interpreted narrowly.

Publication date: 14-11-2014 | Case no.: I ACa 1084/14

Key issues: petition to set aside arbitration award

id: 20390

Polish Supreme Court order dated 16 October 2014 Case No. III CZ 39/14

1. The subject of a ruling ending the proceedings in the case is the resolution of the dispute defined by the statement of claim or the conclusion of the proceedings with respect to that dispute. The dispute pending before the arbitration court in which an application was filed to remove an arbitrator will end before the state court with a ruling on the petition to set aside the arbitration award. It thus cannot be said that the route to consideration of the application was closed as a result of rejection of the applicant’s cassation appeal.

2. Issuance of an award by the arbitration court does not render moot a proceeding before the state court to remove an arbitrator, which proceeding will continue until the application is decided. Granting of the application could provide possible grounds for setting aside the arbitration award. Even if the application to remove an arbitrator has not been ruled on, a party which complied with the deadline for filing such application does not lose the right to rely on the existence of grounds to remove the arbitrator in the petition to set aside the award.

Publication date: 16-10-2014 | Case no.: III CZ 39/14

Key issues: arbitrator, petition to set aside arbitration award

id: 20385

Kraków Court of Appeal judgment dated 3 October 2014 Case No. I ACa 881/14

1. The state court considering a case seeking to set aside an arbitration award cannot re-examine the merits of the dispute. … Treating the scope of review by the state court differently would undermine the autonomy of arbitration, which would place it in a kind of protectorate of the state court system, thus distorting not only the ideals on which the functioning of arbitration is based but also the intention of the Parliament, which in modifying the rules for its functioning limits the scope of intervention by the state court system to exceptional instances expressly stated in the law.

2. The state court is not entitled to review whether the arbitration court properly determined the facts and properly evaluated the evidence. This falls within the bounds of the resolution on the merits of the asserted claims.

Publication date: 03-10-2014 | Case no.: I ACa 881/14

Key issues: arbitration award, petition to set aside arbitration award

id: 20406

Warsaw Court of Appeal judgment dated 24 July 2014 Case No. I ACa 154/14

1. The fact that two arbitrators, constituting a majority of the panel, had already signed drafts of the awards was certainly not valid grounds for the presiding arbitrator to refuse to continue deliberations over the awards. This was not equivalent to the act of voting, not to mention equivalent to deliberations on the resolution and the grounds for the resolution. Refusal to continue the deliberations in order to discuss the comments means that it cannot be said that the deliberations were completed and voting was held on the awards. … As pointed out in the legal literature, the list of examples of violations with respect to regulations on voting, removal of an arbitrator and the award which were set forth in Civil Procedure Code Art. 712 §1(3) (in force through 16 October 2005) were not expressly carried over to the wording of Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1(4). There is no doubt, however, that a violation of these rules should generally be treated as a violation of fundamental rules of procedure.

2. Ignoring evidence offered by a party because the arbitration court found the evidence to be unnecessary will not qualify as depriving the party of the ability to present a defence. Examination by the state court of whether the arbitration court correctly found such evidence to be unnecessary would constitute impermissible encroachment into the merits of the case. If the arbitration court ignored a certain portion of the defence presented by the party, while including in the grounds for the award a substantive explanation of the reasons it found the defence to be irrelevant, then the party’s allegation with respect to ignoring its defence is in reality directed against the substantive defence of the dispute and as such is impermissible.

Publication date: 24-07-2014 | Case no.: I ACa 154/14

Key issues: arbitration award, arbitration procedure, petition to set aside arbitration award

id: 20389

Supreme Court of Poland judgment dated 15 May 2014 Case No. II CSK 557/13

1. The issue of the consistency of the resolution by the arbitration court with the determined state of facts is beyond cassation review in connection with Civil Procedure Code Art. 3983 §3.

2. The arbitration court’s violation of the substantive law governing the case, which generally is connected with Civil Procedure Code Art. 1194 §1, is subject to review by the state court considering a petition to set aside an arbitration award only in terms of application of the public policy clause—at the court’s own initiative or on the basis of an allegation in the petition.

3. The circumstances separately listed in Civil Procedure Code Art. 1206 §1 as grounds for setting aside an arbitration award, proof of which lies primarily in the interests of the party, are excluded from the scope of application of the public policy clause.

4. The arbitration court’s conduct of the proceeding ignoring evidence offered by a party may justify an allegation of violation of Civil Procedure Code Art. 1183 if the evidence was necessary to the resolution of the case.

5. If the evidence raised by the party was ignored as a result of the arbitration court’s interpretation of substantive law, the mere fact that the interpretation may be regarded as erroneous cannot justify granting a petition to set aside the award unless the award also violates fundamental principles of the legal order.

6. The arbitration court’s application of regulations on the limitations period or preclusion may not be regarded as a violation of fundamental principles of the legal order even if this occurred on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the regulations.

Publication date: 15-05-2014 | Case no.: II CSK 557/13

Key issues: arbitration procedure, petition to set aside arbitration award

id: 20267

Katowice Appellate Court order dated 8 May 2014 Case No. V ACz 343/14

1. Clause 20.8 of the [FIDIC Conditions of Contract for Plant and Design-Build] could apply in all instances where the parties did not decide for whatever reason to submit a dispute to the Dispute Adjudication Board. This conclusion is also justified by the placement of this provision. After detailed provisions concerning dispute resolution, at the end of the conditions of contract the parties decided to include a kind of savings clause maintaining the arbitration clause
in force regardless of whether the procedures provided for earlier were followed or not.

2. The argument that the arbitration clause gave the party initiating the proceeding the exclusive choice of which court the dispute should be resolved by should not be upheld.

3. The court of appeal did not share the view that the defence [of the arbitration clause] could be asserted at the latest at the stage of the dispute adjudication procedure conducted between the parties.

Publication date: 08-05-2014 | Case no.: V ACz 343/14

Key issues: arbitration agreement, jurisdiction of arbitral tribunal

id: 20148

Kraków Court of Appeal order dated 10 March 2014 Case No. I ACz 315/14

1. The wording of Civil Procedure Code Art. 1215 §2 leaves no doubt that it applies only to an award issued by an arbitration court abroad or a settlement concluded before such court.

2. The mere fact that a party belongs to the employers’ organization where the arbitration court operates is not grounds for finding the arbitration agreement to be invalid.

Publication date: 10-03-2014 | Case no.: I ACz 315/14

Key issues: arbitration agreement, recognition and enforcement of domestic arbitration award

id: 20411

scroll up