News

After 7 years, we were successful in a lawsuit before the Courts in Lublin (ref. IX GC 683/24 and I AGa 63/25) brought by a large chemical concern against a small contractor of a specialized air purification plant and discoverer of many inventions and patents in the field of gas pyrolysis, wastewater and environmental protection.

This rather unusual and complicated process could fill several large construction and installation court files:

• first, the Investor’s lawsuit against the Contractor for payment of liquidated penalties based on the objection of the Investor’s rescission of the contract due to the Contractor’s fault, due to the failure to meet the condition allowing the installation part to proceed, due to alleged significant defects in the technical documentation;
• then, classically, an answer of the defendant to the lawsuit with a demand for the admission of an expert opinion on air and wastewater treatment installations and an objection of ineffective rescission of the installation contract and the misinterpretation of the contract;
• Then – atypically in a business case – a counterclaim of the Contractor for remuneration for the design documentation and compensation for preventing the performance of the installation part, as a result of the lack of cooperation of the Investor;
• the first success – a judgment of the District Court (Polish „Sąd Okręgowy”) dismissing the claim for liquidated damages in full and awarding part of the Contractor’s remuneration for the delivered documentation;
• second success – appeal by both parties – judgment of the Court of Appeals finally dismissing the Investor’s claim (liquidated damages) in full and ordering the Contractor’s claim to be clarified;
• Third success – second judgment of the District Court awarding the Investor the same part of the remuneration for the documentation;
• fourth success – judgment of the Court of Appeals awarding the Contractor’s demand for payment of the contractually agreed remuneration in full !!!!

This means that:

• The Investor unreasonably demanded liquidated damages and wrongly rescinded the contract;
• The Contractor properly produced the technical documentation;
• The Investor wrongly did not allow the Contractor to perform the installation part of the treatment plant;
• The Investor wrongly failed to pay the Contractor’s remuneration and deprived the Contractor of the agreed amount due.

This also means that the corporation’s multi-person administrative and technical background does not guarantee freedom from mistakes, emotional reactions or wrong decisions, and a small one can be powerful.

Fortis cadere, cedere non potest. (The strong may fall, but they never give up).