Suspension of the enforceability of a payment order for the amount of 300 thousand zlotys – effective protection of clients of the HWW law firm in a promissory note dispute

1. Stages of conduct – a process strategy aimed at protecting customers

Bills of exchange disputes, conducted under the order procedure, are characterized by a high degree of formalism and far-reaching procedural consequences for defendants. This is because an order for payment issued on the basis of a promissory note – after the expiration of the time limit for payment – becomes immediately enforceable, which allows the creditor to carry out enforcement even before the case is heard on the merits.

The HWW law firm represented two clients – sole proprietors– against whom a payment order was issued for PLN 300,000 plus interest and costs, based on a blank promissory note issued in connection with a previous business relationship with a commercial entity.

In the realities of the case, it was particularly important that the asserted claim did not arise from a classic monetary obligation (e.g., a loan or credit), but from accrued contractual penalties for alleged violations of the non-compete, the legitimacy of which was disputed by our clients from the very beginning. At the same time, the referral of the payment order for enforcement could have led to irreversible property consequences, including the paralysis of the clients’ business operations.

In response to these threats, HWW developed a litigation strategy focused on immediately blocking the enforceability of the payment order, filing – as part of its objections to the order – a motion to suspend it under Article 492 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. Legal argumentation of the law firm

Acting on behalf of its clients, HWW Law Firm presented a multi-faceted legal and factual argument demonstrating that:

• The promissory note was filled contrary to the promissory note agreement,
• The plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the prerequisites for contractual penalties, in particular, he failed to prove a violation of the non-compete clause,
• The promissory note claim was based on a disputed and complex underlying relationship that requires a full evidentiary investigation.

The firm argued that the mere formal fulfillment of the prerequisites for the issuance of a payment order cannot prejudge the validity of the claim, if the defendants have made it plausible that there has been an abuse of the rights under the promissory note declaration. It was also pointed out that there were significant discrepancies in the parties’ positions on the nature of cooperation, the scope of contractual obligations and the relationship between the defendants.

At the same time, the law firm demonstrated the risk of causing irreparable harm to clients, stressing that:

• enforcement of an amount exceeding PLN 300,000 could permanently disrupt their financial situation,
• if the order for payment is rescinded, recovery of the enforced funds from the plaintiff could prove illusory,
• The immediate enforceability of the order would lead to a de facto settlement of the dispute before its merits.

3. Effects of actions and securing the situation of customers

The District Court fully shared the arguments presented by the HWW law firm and stayed the execution of the payment order pending the final conclusion of the proceedings. The justification indicated that the defendants’ allegations are not pretextual, and the case is not a typical payment dispute arising from a simple monetary obligation.

The court stressed that the validity of the plaintiff’s claim could be assessed only after an adversarial hearing, and that maintaining the immediate enforceability of the order under such circumstances would be an undue hardship on the defendants.

In practice, this means that the firm’s clients have been effectively protected from bailiff enforcement, preserving the ability to calmly defend their rights in the further course of the proceedings.

4. The importance of the case and its implications

The case is of significant practical importance because it shows that a payment order on a promissory note is not absolute, and its immediate enforceability can be successfully challenged if the defendant demonstrates serious doubts about the validity of the claim or the risk of irreparable harm.

The order also confirms that in disputes based on contractual penalties and blank promissory notes, a sound analysis of the underlying relationship and a prompt procedural response are crucial. Successfully filed objections and a request for stay of execution can realistically balance the litigation position of the parties and prevent formal legal instruments from being used in an overly repressive manner.

5. The importance of the case and its implications

The litigation team of the HWW – Partners law firm was responsible for handling the case: attorneys Aleksandra Lindner and Nicholas Hewelt, as well as attorney Sebastian Król.