Appeal court modifies first-instance judgment on easement compensation due to expert report errors and cost allocation mistakes.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe appellate court modified the first-instance judgment regarding compensation for unauthorized use of land, correcting amounts based on flawed expert calculations and adjusting cost allocations. The defendant argued the easement was acquired by prescription, but the court found the expert's methodology for determining the usage coefficient was unclear and non-compliant with procedural requirements. Consequently, the court reduced the awarded compensation for specific periods, increased it for others, and corrected the distribution of litigation costs between the parties.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 383 k.p.c.; Art. 385 k.p.c.; Art. 386 § 4 k.p.c.; Art. 100 k.p.c.: An expert opinion lacking a clear explanation of the calculation method for a usage coefficient cannot serve as the basis for awarding damages, and appellate courts must correct first-instance judgments where the expert's reasoning is ambiguous or where cost allocations are erroneous.