id: 20585

Polish Supreme Court order

 dated 17 July 2020

Case No. V CSK 109/20

Summary by arbitraz.laszczuk.pl:

The Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce in W. delivered an award in a dispute between two joint-stock companies: A., based in W., and M., based in W.

A. filed a petition to set aside the arbitration award. The Court of Appeal found the petition to be partially well-founded. However, A. filed a cassation appeal to the Polish Supreme Court.

The Polish Supreme Court refused to accept the cassation appeal for examination. It found that a possibility to partially set aside an arbitration award results directly from Art. 1206 § 1 point 3 of the Polish Civil Procedure Code (the “PCPC”).

It is worth noting that in this order the Polish Supreme Court made a reference to, among other things, the following Polish Supreme Court rulings: dated 6 January 1961, Case No. 2 CR 532/59, dated 13 December 1967, Case No. I CR 445/67, dated 27 June 1984, Case No. II CZ 67/84, dated 6 May 2016, Case No. I CSK 305/15 and dated 8 February 2019, Case No. I CSK 757/17.

Excerpts from the text of the court’s ruling:

1. Going beyond the limits of the claim may … constitutes a violation of the fundamental principles of procedure before an arbitral tribunal (Art. 1206 § 1 point 4), alternatively, depending on the circumstances of a case, it may result in the defendant being deprived of the ability to defend its rights (Art. 1206 § 1 point 2 of the PCPC). There is also no doubt that a claim to set aside an arbitration award may relate to the entire award or to a part thereof only, and a state court is bound by the scope of the challenge indicated by the party, which does not mean that a state court cannot find a claim to be well-founded in part … .

2. On the other hand, the general view expressed by the adjudicating panel [in the Polish Supreme Court judgment dated 6 May 2016, Case No. I CSK 305/15 – insertion added] that a court is bound by the claim presented in the petition to set aside an arbitration award in full, and the court’s finding that the granting of a claim in part pertains to a claim of another kind that has not been raised by the petitioner, is isolated and has not been followed up in subsequent case-law, also after an amendment of the petition model procedure.

3. The proceedings to set aside an arbitration award are one-instance proceedings and a judgment may only quash or dismiss the petition, which, taking into account the principle of the state court being bound by the scope of the challenge, makes the application of Art. 384 of the PCPC in such proceedings, as a general rule, aimless.