The decision to file a lawsuit for payment for additional work must be made at the right time

We successfully concluded a court dispute in which our Client, as an investor, was sued by a construction works contractor for payment of remuneration for additional works.

The settlement concerned a certain part of the construction work performed by the contractor for the investor in connection with an investment project involving the construction of a sports and recreation complex in the Podkarpacie region.

The settlement concerned a certain part of the construction works performed by the contractor for the investor in connection with the investment involving the construction of a sports and recreation complex in the Podkarpacie region, carried out in 2011-2013.

The contractor filed a lawsuit for payment of the amounts due – in his opinion – to him only in 2023, and had previously twice requested the Law Firm’s Client to attempt a settlement. The contractor claimed that this resulted in the interruption of the limitation period for his claims.

On behalf of the Client, the Law Firm’s attorneys and advocates presented extensive arguments as to the invalidity of the claims pursued by the contractor, given that the investor had fully settled the remuneration due to the contractor, and additionally raised the plea of the claims passage of time.

The fact is that the client of the Law Firm has consistently questioned the validity of the disputed invoice issued by the contractor for the claimed remuneration since the moment it was issued. This was also the case during the first proceedings initiated by a motion for a settlement attempt. Despite the investor’s unambiguous position and the failure to reach a settlement between the parties, the contractor did not decide to bring an action after the first unsuccessful attempt at settlement, but after three years, on the day before the expiry of the limitation period, submitted another request for a settlement attempt.

The court of first instance fully agreed with the arguments of the Law Firm’s lawyers that, in the circumstances of the case, the contractor’s action of filing another request for a settlement attempt did not constitute an action directly aimed at satisfying the claim referred to in Article 123 § 1(1) of the Civil Code, and thus did not result in the interruption of the limitation period. The judgment is very important for the Client in the context of other claims pursued by the contractor in other court disputes between the parties.