Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
III PK 63/05 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding improper substitution of a natural person plaintiff with a company in a payment order proceeding.

Case Number III PK 63/05
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Poland (PL)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal against a judgment that substituted a natural person plaintiff with a commercial company in a payment order proceeding. The lower court ruled this substitution was procedurally invalid because it effectively amended the party's identity without following the strict requirements of the Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, the court set aside the appealed decisions and remanded the case for a new trial to ensure proper procedural compliance.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Art. 196 k.p.c.; Art. 379 pkt 2 k.p.c.; Art. 379 pkt 5 k.p.c.; Art. 393 § 1 k.p.c.: In payment order proceedings, substituting a natural person plaintiff with a company is inadmissible as it violates the prohibition on expanding the claim or changing parties, depriving the original plaintiff of the right to defend their rights.

Keywords

AI generated
payment order proceedings substitution of parties civil procedure code procedural invalidity remand for retrial natural person plaintiff commercial company

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Art. 196 k.p.c.
Art. 379 pkt 2 k.p.c.
Art. 379 pkt 5 k.p.c.
Art. 393 § 1 k.p.c.
art. 125 k.p
art. 493 § 1 k.p.c
art. 495 § 3 k.p.c
art. 493 k.p.c
art. 125 § 2 k.p
art. 125 § 1 k.p

Cited Case Law

AI generated
C.I. 571/45
IV PRN 4/77
I PKN 586/00
High Court dismisses appeal; improper authorization of counsel always invalidates proceedings under Art. 379(2) KPC.
III CZP 32/04
Supreme Court dismisses appeal confirming that a party cannot ratify acts by an unauthorized lawyer. The court rules that such acts are void and cannot be cured by ratification.
III CZP 19/66
III CK 266/03
I PK 284/02
Supreme Court remands case to determine if a protected workshop is a legal employer under labor law.
V CK 472/03
III CZP 43/95

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text