litigation | In Principle

Losses caused by human errors should be made up. But there are fields where it is particularly difficult to obtain damages to redress mistakes.

After the end of cooperation with the principal, a commercial agent is entitled to indemnity if the agent brought “new” customers to the principal or generated a significant increase in turnover with “old” customers. But what if the customer is “old,” and the turnover hasn’t increased greatly, but the agent encouraged the customer to order goods or services it hadn’t ordered before?

The topic of liability for damages on the part of public authorities is not widely known. Many people are not aware of the extensive rights at their disposal connected with actions by bodies of public authority. Consequently, injured parties often fail to pursue redress of losses suffered in connection with public administration.

It used to be accepted that the sovereign is infallible, and questioning the correctness of the sovereign’s decisions was bound to end badly. Today, fortunately for the people, there are instruments for holding the authorities liable for their wrongful acts and omissions.

It is theoretically possible to pursue damages from the State Treasury for injury caused by violation of EU law, such as non-implementation of directives. But procedural difficulties discourage most litigants from taking this path.

The liability of public authorities for unlawful acts or omissions also extends to delay in the functioning of the courts, infringing the individual’s right to have his case heard without undue delay. A finding of excessive length of proceedings enables a party to pursue redress of the resulting loss through the courts.

An amendment to the Civil Procedure Code entered into force on 1 January 2016, raising the importance of mediation and significantly changing Poland’s mediation regulations. This will also affect the course of judicial proceedings commenced from that date forward.

This question can be answered only after determining which substantive law applies to the case. It can be a crucial issue in cross-border disputes.

It is often said that the law cannot keep up with the pace of a changing reality, particularly technological progress. This is evident for example in the rules for representation of businesses, which are poorly adapted to online transactions. Fortunately the courts approach this problem with understanding.

Can evidence from an internal investigation be used in court?

Confidentiality, speed and cost control by the parties are usually ticked off as advantages of arbitration. But these go out the window when the state court intervenes in an arbitration case.

The panel of judges must be changed after a ruling is overturned and remanded for reconsideration only in the case of a ruling on the merits of the specific dispute. This is not the case for proceedings commenced by an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court on procedural issues.