Author: ts_admin

In 2020, our client, a well-known and widely liked commentator on the maritime sector, made a post on his social media profile criticizing the board of a large state-owned company, including its chairman. The chairman had been an active politician of the ruling party for many years. The post made allegations about his lack of experience in the maritime industry, including shipbuilding. His managerial competence was also questioned. In addition, the client cast doubt on the chairman’s English language skills.

The chairman filed a defamation lawsuit, where he demanded a public apology and the payment of a large sum of money to a certain foundation. Interestingly, the lawsuit did not concern allegations of lack of competence or experience, but only – the degree of knowledge of the English language.

The client, however, saw no basis for an apology and turned to us. After analyzing the facts, the content of the entry and the allegations from the lawsuit, we came to the conclusion that the published text could not be a violation of personal rights at all. Knowledge of a foreign language is not a personal good. Adn in addition – due to his position – president (and member of the ruling party) in a state-owned company implementing government policy, one must be aware of exposure to a higher level of legitimate criticism and a lower level of one’s legal protection.

During the trial, the plaintiff attempted to show that his knowledge of English was excellent through, among other things, the testimony of witnesses, associates of his political office. They confirmed this knowledge. However, it turned out that they themselves did not speak English to a degree that would lend credence to this. And when asked by the attorney if you could say what the term “maritime economy” sounds like in English, one of the witnesses replied that he did not know. So, he could not confirm his supervisor’s basic, industry-specific knowledge of this language.

The courts of both instances did not leave a dry eye on the claims of the lawsuit. They agreed with us, while dismissing the plaintiff’s claims and ordering him to pay the full costs of the lawsuit.

The client who turned to us for help emerged victorious from this unusual dispute and:

• avoided civil liability,
• saved a lot of stress and money,
• gained in the public eye.

And as an aside, we had a lot of fun with the client on this trial.

If you have a similar problem, please contact us. High-profile media cases are also our specialty, especially in the maritime industry.

We have an ongoing collaboration with a large production company, and one of the key aspects of our service is the continuous review and verification of contracts they enter into with employment agencies.

Although such contracts may seem straightforward, a thorough analysis often helps identify potential risks, avoid legal disputes, and ensure staffing stability.

Recently, we reviewed an agreement concerning temporary workers, our responsibilities included:

• Risk Analysis: We meticulously examined the contract for financial and legal risks, ensuring there were no clauses that could lead to unfavorable consequences for our client.
• Protecting Client Interests: We proposed amendments that strengthened the company’s negotiating position and safeguarded it against potential legal issues.
• Legal Compliance Assessment: We ensured that all provisions of the contract complied with current regulations and were free from errors and ambiguities that could lead to disputes.

During our review, we discovered that the draft contract lacked provisions regarding termination. This omission could have prevented our client from controlling the contract’s duration, exposing the company to significant financial and organizational losses.

By introducing appropriate termination clauses, we were able to:

• Secure the Client’s Interests: Ensuring the company has the flexibility to end the agreement under defined circumstances.
• Minimize Future Disputes: Clearly outlined terms reduce the likelihood of misunderstandings and legal conflicts.
• Enhance Cooperation with External Partners: A well-structured contract fosters smoother collaboration and sets clear expectations for all parties involved.

Thanks to our interventions, the client can now focus on their core business activities with the confidence that their agreement is legally sound and protects their interests throughout all stages of cooperation with employment agency.

In 2020, our client, a well-known and widely respected commentator in the maritime industry, was sued by a large state-owned company for a critical social media post. The company, whose management had long been criticized in the industry and media for incompetence, lack of experience, and mismanagement, accused our client of defamation and demanded substantial compensation.

After a thorough analysis of the case and the collection of extensive documentation, we were able to build a strong defense. We demonstrated that the criticism in the post was justified and based on facts. Additionally, we identified several irregularities in the lawsuit filed by the company.

The court of first instance found that our client’s post did not constitute defamation and that nearly 75% of the content was truthful. However, the court ordered our client to issue a partial apology to the company, noting that he had slightly overstepped the bounds of permissible criticism when he stated that the shipyard’s docks were empty. Nonetheless, the court refrained from imposing any financial penalty and ruled that the plaintiff company had lost the case to a significant extent, awarding legal costs to our client.

We were not satisfied with this outcome and filed an appeal, emphasizing the public nature of the company (which was involved in implementing government policies) and the citizen’s right to critically assess such an entity.

The court of appeal fully agreed with our position, overturning the lower court’s decision and dismissing the company’s lawsuit in its entirety, requiring the company to bear the full costs of the proceedings.

Thanks to our assistance the client:

• avoided any legal liability for his bold journalism,
• emerged victorious from the media storm, confirming the truth of his statements,
• obtained even greater trust from the public, especially within the maritime industry.

If your reputation has been unfairly tarnished or if someone wrongly believes you have tarnished theirs, don’t hesitate to contact us.

We can help you restore lost trust. We are experts in handling legal disputes.

Since 2023, we have been assisting a leading European yacht equipment manufacturer in negotiating a contract with one of the largest yacht manufacturers. The yacht manufacturer presented their standard cooperation agreement, which we worked on collaboratively with our client.

Cooperation agreements are generally highly sought after in the industry. They provide a framework for collaboration and establish its terms. The goal of such agreements is to create a model that ensures a secure relationship for both parties.

In this case, the yacht manufacturer proposed terms that seemed to enhance our client’s business stability. The agreement outlined long-term cooperation and extended after-sales service.

However, a closer analysis revealed significant flaws in the proposed agreement. Most notably, it did not grant our client exclusivity in any territory. Moreover, the fixed pricing, initially seen as a benefit, posed a disadvantage when considering fluctuations in the yacht equipment market. Finally, the agreement deviated from standard practices concerning product liability, significantly increasing the risk on our client’s side.

Our thorough analysis of the agreement focused not only on legal aspects but also (and perhaps most importantly in this case) on business considerations. A good agreement should benefit both parties. It may impose certain restrictions, but it must also offer something in return. Unfortunately, this was not the case here.

Thanks to the collaboration with our law firm, the company avoided signing an agreement that was ultimately unnecessary. Ongoing advice allowed our client to achieve results by developing internal documents that provided far better protection.

As a result of our contract analysis:

• the company implemented documentation that allows it to operate safely without entering into contracts with individual counterparties,
• it avoided signing an agreement that offered little benefit,
• it received advice on product liability issues.

Supporting entities in the yacht industry is our specialty. With our experience, we can analyze our clients’ situations not only from a legal perspective but also through the lens of their business operations.

In 2022, a client – a maritime logistics company – approached us for help regarding a mistakenly executed transfer. The amount involved was not insignificant, totaling 3,600 EUR. The money was mistakenly sent to the account of a former contractor rather than the intended beneficiary.

The former contractor decided to remain silent about the situation, pretending not to notice the nearly 18,000 PLN deposit.

At this point, one might wonder: can a law firm help in such a situation. After all, the simplest approach would be to ask the bank to reverse the transfer. Unfortunately, that’s not always possible.

According to the internal procedures of the bank handling our client’s account, mistaken transfers can only be reversed within 24 hours of execution. After that, the bank cannot intervene. Our client realized the mistake a week later—specifically, when the intended beneficiary reported not receiving payment for services rendered.

The former contractor still showed no willingness to cooperate. In this situation, the only option was to sue them. The court unequivocally ruled in our favor, ordering the return of the amount in question, along with statutory interest (which was higher than the inflation rate).

Additionally, the client was awarded 3,600 PLN in legal costs, which covered most of the legal fees for this case.

The next step, after the court’s ruling became final and an enforceable title was obtained, was to recover the money through a bailiff.

This stage also ended successfully, with the former contractor having to bear additional costs in the form of 2,140 PLN in enforcement proceedings fees.

Thanks to our law firm’s assistance, the client:

• recovered all their money,
• received compensation in the form of substantial interest, reimbursement of court costs, and legal representation fees in the enforcement process,
• benefited from consistent and prompt legal support at every stage of the case.

If you need assistance in a similar situation or any other legal matter, our law firm is ready to provide you with professional and effective legal services. Trust our experience and recover what is rightfully yours.

In 2018, our client, a yacht shipyard, entered into a settlement with their debtor, a yacht buyer. The debtor was a limited liability company that agreed to pay over 420,000 PLN (plus interest) in installments. Unfortunately, the first installment was not paid.

The client decided to initiate enforcement proceedings, which proved to be ineffective. The bailiff discontinued the proceedings after two years due to the significant number of creditors and the lack of debtor’s assets that could be liquidated to repay the debt.

This created a substantial problem. The outstanding debt, along with costs, grew to over half a million PLN, with no chance of effective recovery.

We needed to act quickly. Fortunately, we managed to identify assets belonging to the debtor company’s president. The challenge was that, given the conditions of the Polish judiciary, we anticipated a lengthy court process, expecting considerable obstruction from the debtors.

Before filling a payment lawsuit against the president in 2020, we submitted a pre-ligation application for security. The security was an entry of a compulsory mortgage in the land and mortgage register of the president’s property. The secured amount included our claimed sum, plus expected costs and interest.

The court accepted our arguments and established the mortgage, which we then registered in the land and mortgage register. This was the first mortgage on the property, allowing us to pursue the secured amount with relative peace of mind.

As anticipated, the payment lawsuit against the president lasted a long time.

We finally won the case (after an expert opinion) in March 2023, when the Regional Court in Gdańsk (first instance) issued its judgment. The president, of course, appealed, but he also lost the appeal (the Court of Appeal issued a judgment dismissing the appeal in December 2023).

As a result, the case was conclusively resolved only at the turn of 2023 and 2024, and only then could we start enforcement proceedings against the secured property. Ultimately, the defendant president conceded and agreed to the negotiated settlement terms (even before incurring bailiff costs)

Thanks to our actions, the shipyard:

• effectively secured its claims despite the debtor company’s dire situation,
• mitigated the risk of losing the president’s assets and prolonged court proceedings,
• could negotiate payment terms after the court process with significant comfort, utilizing a stronger negotiating position.

This was an interesting case that we were able to handle thanks to our knowledge and procedural experience. It also required some legal courage. However, we managed to minimize most potential risks and concluded the matter very positively for the client.

During the Polboat Yachting Festival in Gdynia in 2021, we had a conversation with one of the yacht manufacturers showcasing their latest model. The shipyard’s representative mentioned they were facing issues with one of their subcontractors. They were dissatisfied with the quality of the services provided but were not yet able to assess the damage or its extent. Despite these concerns, the subcontractor filed a lawsuit for payment (including costs and interest) amounting to nearly 100,000 PLN.

The case was pending in the District Court in Gdańsk, with a hearing scheduled shortly after the festival, at the beginning of August 2021.

We were familiar with the subcontractor and agreed with the shipyard representatives to take a closer look at the case and explore the possibility of a settlement. A lengthy trial was anticipated, likely involving detailed expert opinions, which would incur additional costs.

By understanding the needs and perspective of the plaintiff – the subcontractor – we facilitated a preliminary settlement even before the case was called in the courthouse hallway. The settlement was deemed reasonable by the judge and involved our clients paying 1/3 of the amount claimed by the plaintiff.

Thanks to the settlement, the shipyard:

• concluded a serious dispute at a financially reasonable level,
• completely eliminated the risk of an uncertain court ruling, along with the significant additional costs (legal fees, expert reports, and court-appointed expert opinions), not to mention the time and emotional toll,
• Returned to its ongoing production without further disruptions.

Our approach was guided by the old legal adage, “even the worst settlement is better than the best judgment.” By realistically assessing the formal stage of the case, the capabilities of both parties, and the potential costs and duration of the trial, we successfully facilitated an agreement.

The settlement was executed, and representatives from both companies continue to meet and converse at industry events to this day.