Litigation and Dispute Resolution

No. Many disputes can be resolved out of court, for example through negotiation, compromise, conciliation or arbitration. An out-of-court solution is often quicker and cheaper and helps to preserve the relationship between the parties. At the same time, there are situations in which protecting your rights requires turning to the court. The most suitable path can be chosen after assessing the circumstances of the dispute.

The prospects of a claim are affected above all by the circumstances, the available evidence and the applicable law. Before entering into a dispute it is worth assessing how strong your position is, what the possible outcomes and costs are and whether the aim could also be achieved out of court. A lawyer can help to give this assessment and recommend a reasonable course of action.

Time limits depend on the type of claim. Many monetary and contractual claims have a general limitation period of 3 years, but in some cases it is longer, for example for claims related to an intentional breach. The time limit usually starts to run from when the claim falls due or from when you became aware of the breach. If the time limit passes, the other party may refuse to satisfy the claim, so it is worth reviewing your rights as early as possible.

In addition to limitation, many proceedings also have other time limits, for example for challenging a decision or an act, which can be very short. This is precisely why it is sensible not to wait but to assess your options as soon as a dispute arises or as soon as you receive a document you do not agree with.

An action is a person’s claim with which they turn to the court to protect their rights. A statement of claim is the document that sets out the claim, its basis and the evidence. A well-prepared statement of claim is very important for the dispute, because it establishes the content and scope of the claim. An incorrect or deficient statement of claim can hinder the proceedings or weaken your position. Certain matters are also resolved in proceedings on petition, where the rules are somewhat different, but the aim is generally the same, namely to protect your rights and interests.

If an action has been brought against you, it does not mean that you have lost anything. You have the right to respond to the action and to present your positions and evidence. For this the court sets a fixed time limit that must be observed. Failing to respond within the time limit is serious, because it may lead to a default judgment that is unfavourable to you, without your arguments being considered at all.

For this reason, on receiving a court document it is worth reading it carefully, noting the time limit for responding and assessing whether and how to contest the action. The earlier you start, the more time there is to gather evidence and to build a well-considered defence.

A default judgment is a court decision that the court may make when one party has not duly taken part in the proceedings, for example has not responded to the action in time or has not appeared at the hearing. This means that the matter may be resolved without your positions being considered on the merits.

A default judgment is not always final. Under certain conditions a petition to set aside a default judgment can be filed, by which a fresh review of the matter on the merits is requested. There is a short time limit for this, so on receiving a default judgment it is worth acting at once and assessing whether there is a basis for challenging it.

This depends on the type of matter and the court instance. In a civil matter and an administrative matter a person may generally represent themselves in court. This is not prohibited. In practice, however, the procedural rules, time limits and the preparation of documents are often complex, and the other party may be represented by an experienced lawyer, so professional assistance can significantly affect the outcome. In a criminal matter the situation is different. When the matter reaches court, the accused must usually have a defence counsel. In most cases this is a lawyer. In some situations the use of a representative is nevertheless required. For example, in the Supreme Court procedural acts in a civil matter can generally be carried out only through an attorney-at-law.

An appeal is filed with the circuit court when a party does not agree with the decision of the court of first instance. The circuit court can review the matter again on both factual and legal questions. An appeal in cassation is filed with the Supreme Court, where the assessment concerns above all the correctness of the application of the law, no longer the evidence or the factual circumstances. The Supreme Court does not establish factual circumstances but deals only with legal questions, and for this reason in some proceedings the Supreme Court can be approached only through a lawyer.

These are measures by which the court can protect a party’s rights already during the proceedings, so that the future decision is not left unenforced. For example, the court may prohibit the transfer of property, suspend the disputed act or impose a temporary obligation to do something or to refrain from doing it. Such applications are often urgent and require good reasoning, because the court weighs the interests of both parties. If there is a risk that the other party may transfer property or change the situation, it is worth considering the possibility of preliminary legal protection as early as possible.

The duration of a court dispute is difficult to predict precisely, because it depends on the complexity of the matter, the amount of evidence, the conduct of the parties and the workload of the court. Simpler matters may be resolved more quickly, more complex disputes may last longer, especially when they pass through several court instances. An out-of-court solution is often quicker.

A court dispute usually involves a state fee, legal costs and possible other procedural costs, for example the costs of an expert assessment. The losing party generally also has to compensate the other party’s justified costs. For this reason, before entering into a dispute it is sensible to assess the possible costs and their relation to the subject of the dispute. A more precise forecast can be given after reviewing the circumstances and the evidence.

Arbitration is an out-of-court way of resolving a dispute in which the parties leave the matter to be decided by an impartial arbitral tribunal. It usually presupposes a prior agreement of the parties, for example an arbitration clause in a contract. Arbitration can be quicker and more confidential than ordinary court proceedings, and the decision of the arbitral tribunal is binding on the parties.

Conciliation is a softer solution in which an impartial conciliator helps the parties to reach an agreement themselves but does not make a binding decision. Conciliation is especially suitable when the parties wish to preserve their relationship and find a solution satisfactory to both. Both paths can save time and costs and help to avoid a long court dispute, but the most suitable choice depends on the nature of the dispute and the aims of the parties.