Investigation of claims after repeated interruption of the limitation period – abuse of individual rights?

Status of the case

Between 2002 and 2011 ‘A.’ S.A. exhibited ‘C.’ S.A. a number of interest notes related to their economical cooperation, consisting in the performance by the plaintiff of services which were paid but late. In 2002-2017, the accounting staff of ‘A.’ S.A. regularly confirmed the interest balance. ‘A.’ S.A. recognised these amounts in its accounting records as outstanding receivables. In the course of the discussions, representatives of the cooperating companies established that the debtor would pay interest in the event of the financial impact, which did not occur. erstwhile on 1.4.2017 “B.” S.A. became the legal successor to the debtor, “A.” S.A. requested payment of the debt but met with a refusal. Neither the negotiations nor the call for a settlement effort led to the settlement of the dispute and payment of the claim.

After a categorical refusal to pay the receivables of ‘A.’ S.A. applied against ‘B.’ S.A. with a suit for payment of over PLN 1.7 million with interest. SO in K. took into account the action in its entirety, while SA in K., Following an appeal by the defendant, he amended the contested judgement by dismissing the action. SA in K. stated that the plaintiff had proven the existence of a claim investigator in rule and in terms of both balance confirmations and origin documents. The claims in question were not subject to statute of limitations as the repeated confirmation of the balances, which were considered inappropriate, led to the interruption of the limitation period. Another interruption of the limitation period was due to a call for a settlement attempt.

SA in K. considers, however, that the applicant’s claim for payment was an abuse of the entity’s rights referred to in Article 5 of the KC. The full number of activities aimed at breaking the statute of limitations by the plaintiff was found to be contrary to the principles of social coexistence. In the assessment of SA in K. the acceptance of instruments of designation made by repeated confirmation of the balance of debt would, in practice, consequence in the elimination of the limitation institution in economical trade. In fact, it was found that, in view of the accounting practices of the plaintiffs and the erstwhile deficiency of judicial enforcement, it is hard to consider the intention to prosecute interest receivables to be actual. In specified circumstances, the Court of First Instance found that the action against the legal successor of the first debtor, which did not affect the activities of ‘C.’ S.A., was contrary to the principles of fair, loyal and certain turnover.

Allegations of a cassation complaint

‘A.’ S.A. in the cassation complaint contested the assessment of the evidence and the findings of the actual SA in K. on the intention to prosecute interest receivables. The applicant argued that it was wrongly accused of misuse of the entity's rights. In its view, it is unjustified to challenge the admissibility of multiple interruptions by confirming the balance. ‘A.’ S.A. besides indicated that the on-the-spot control of the application of Article 5 of the CCC is only permitted in exceptional cases and should not be applied in this proceeding.

Position of the ultimate Court

The ultimate Court annulled the judgement under appeal and dismissed the appeal ‘B’. S.A. from the judgement of SO in K., which in effect led to the finality of the decision of the Court of First Instance taking into account the application. The grounds for the judgement explained that the plea of infringement of Article 233(1) of the NPC was inadmissible in the cassation proceedings and was so not examined. At the phase of the cassation proceedings, it is not possible to establish fresh facts and evidence and the SN is bound by the factual findings on which the judgement under appeal is based. Contrary to the applicant’s claims, SN considered that SA in K. was entitled to make its own assessment of the abuse of the right of entity in the form of a claim for payment. The grounds for the judgement stated that the review of the regularity of the application of those provisions of law which leave the alleged discretion, including Article 5 of the CCC, to the courts of the first instance is acceptable and is simply a specified component in the recognition of the case in the full appeal model.

Abuse of a individual right

The NS stated that, in the circumstances of the case, the creditor’s claim cannot be assessed as an abuse of a individual right. ‘A.’ S.A., seeking to get the satisfaction of the claim, not only regularly reminded the defendant's legal predecessor of the existing debt, but besides explicitly discussed repayments. ‘C.’ S.A. claimed that if he had free funds he would pay interest debts, so the creditor had grounds to presume that the debtor would voluntarily comply with his obligations. In specified a situation, it is hard to make ‘A.’ S.A. allegations that the claim for payment was made only after the suspect had powerfully refused to settle the debt, although this occurred after a crucial period of time after the debt arose. The plaintiff did not behave in relation to the suspect disloyally or unfairly, and an effective investigation of the alleged claim did not jeopardise the certainty of the trade. In the assessment of the SN, it is unacceptable to presume that the institution may be utilized for the benefit of an entity which repeatedly confirms the existence of incriminating, unmet claims, thus maintaining ‘A.’ S.A. in the belief that the creditor's right to receive the benefit is recognised. In specified a situation, it is disloyal to refuse to pay and not to effort to get satisfaction from the creditor.

Inadequacy and relationships between counterparties

By reason of the judgement of the SA in K. it follows that the confirmation of the balance, i.e. the accounting activity, has not only been classified as contrary to the principles of social coexistence. Investigation by the claimant of a claim which was repeatedly recognised by the debtor in the performance of its obligations under the accounting rules, SA in K. assessed as contrary to the socio-economic intent of this law. However, the SN found it inappropriate to accept specified measures would destruct the limitation institution on economical turnover, stressing that the confirmation of the balance concerns only non-contested claims. It can be considered justified that the creditor has ceased to be satisfied that the debtor has confirmed the existence and amount of his debt, alternatively of seeking to enforce the work as shortly as possible. The absence of prompt referral to court proceedings can be justified by the nature of the relation with the debtor and can be due to both individual and economical factors. The court should take these arguments into account and not search to deprive the creditor of full legal protection.

The NS stressed that the institution standardized in Article 123(1)(2) of the CCC allows the creditor to extend the time for the debtor to repay the claim without hazard of failure of the anticipation of effective judicial recovery. The investigation and enforcement of claims may negatively affect the functioning of the counterparty company and usually lead to the termination of the business relationship, in peculiar in relations between entities with different degrees of activity and unequal economical potential. In practice, the creditor may have an interest in maintaining its business ability and in continuing to cooperate with it. In the assessment of the SN, recognition, besides inappropriate, allows for reconciliation of different economical objectives and the maintenance of cooperation besides where the claims are not regulated in time, but the creditor, taking into account the situation of the debtor and hoping for further cooperation, is temporarily refraining from seeking judicial payment.

Judgment of the ultimate Court of 26.6.2025, II CSKP 699/23, Legalis