Unilateral option clauses have been in the spotlight recently following a series of cases in which the courts questioned their validity. As there is no case law in this respect, special care should be taken when providing for unilateral option clauses in arbitration agreements which are governed by Polish law, or which are to be enforced in Poland.
The Supreme Court recently dealt with the issue of an arbitral tribunal's discretion to admit evidence. It decided that an arbitral award can be set aside if a tribunal dismisses a motion to hear witnesses simply because they failed to appear at the hearing, even though the parties had agreed to postpone the hearing of such witnesses.
The Supreme Court has considered whether the choice of a particular court of arbitration may violate the parties' equality if the court is affiliated with a professional organisation of which only one party to the arbitration proceedings is a member. The court's ruling, firmly rejecting the claims that arbitration courts affiliated with professional bodies are partial or biased, should be welcomed as reasonable and arbitration friendly.
The Supreme Court was asked to consider whether arbitral tribunals should be bound by previous arbitral awards issued between the same parties and recognised by Polish courts. In its ruling, the court adapted the res judicata principle to arbitration by allowing arbitral tribunals to decide on a case-by-case basis whether they should follow previous arbitral awards issued between the same parties.
Including: Agreements; Arbitrators; Proceedings; Awards; Foreign Awards
A new act is affecting the way that arbitration clauses can be used, and in some cases, forbidding them altogether.
A recent case demonstrated that an asignee is affected by an arbitration agreement. The arbitration court rules on an agreement – not the parties to it.
A recent case demonstrated that cassation is not admissible in a court of second instance or an arbitration case.