Supreme Court quashes appeal judgment for omitting new facts and evidence discoverable only after first instance ruling. The court ruled that the second instance court must consider new facts and evidence if the party became aware of their necessity only after the first instance judgment was issued. The Supreme Court found that the lower court violated Article 381 of the Code of Civil Procedure by failing to consider new facts and evidence that the applicant could not have presented in the first instance because they only learned of their necessity after the first instance judgment was issued. The court held that the second instance court must not omit new facts and evidence that could lead to a different decision if the party became aware of their necessity only after the first instance judgment. The Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for a new decision on costs. The court emphasized that the second instance court must consider new facts and evidence if the party became aware of their necessity only after the first instance judgment. The Supreme Court found that the lower court violated Article 381 of the Code of Civil Procedure by failing to consider new facts and evidence that the applicant could not have presented in the first instance. The court held that the second instance court must not omit new facts and evidence that could lead to a different decision if the party became aware of their necessity only after the first instance judgment. The Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for a new decision on costs. The court emphasized that the second instance court must consider new facts and evidence if the party became aware of their necessity only after the first instance judgment.
Poland (PL)
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court quashed the appeal judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for a new decision on costs. The applicant argued that new facts and evidence regarding his health status and workplace conditions were only discoverable after the first instance judgment was issued. The court ruled that the second instance court must consider new facts and evidence if the party became aware of their necessity only after the first instance judgment. The Supreme Court found that the lower court violated Article 381 of the Code of Civil Procedure by failing to consider new facts and evidence that the applicant could not have presented in the first instance.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 381 k.p.c.; Art. 393 § 1 k.p.c. The second instance court must not omit new facts and evidence that could lead to a different decision if the party became aware of their necessity only after the first instance judgment.