Obligatory Mediation in Construction Disputes in Poland from March 2026

From 1 March 2026, the Polish civil procedure rules introduce a significant procedural shift for many construction-related commercial disputes: courts will be obliged to refer parties to mediation before the case reaches its first hearing (or before the preparatory hearing, if one is scheduled first).

This is not “forced settlement” — parties will not be compelled to sign an agreement. But it does reshape early-stage litigation tactics, because mediation becomes the default gateway step in a category of disputes where time, cash flow, and project continuity are often critical.

What exactly will be “obligatory” from March 2026?

The obligation will rest on the court, not on the parties’ willingness to compromise. In the relevant category of cases, the judge must initiate a referral to mediation at the outset of the proceedings, before the court moves into substantive hearings.

In practical terms, this means:

• the case will not simply proceed directly to the first courtroom hearing as a matter of course;

• mediation will be formally embedded as an early procedural stage;

• parties should expect the court to check (and record) whether mediation was attempted and how parties approached it.

For the construction sector — where disputes often include technical issues, expert evidence, and multi-party dynamics — this “mediation-first” moment arrives before costs and positions harden.

Which disputes are affected?

The rule is designed for commercial proceedings involving disputes connected with construction works contracts and, in many cases, contracts closely tied to the construction process.

While the exact boundaries will be clarified by case law and court practice, companies should assume that typical “construction dispute” themes are likely to fall within scope, such as:

• payment disputes (interim payments, final accounts);

• variations and additional works;

• delay claims (including liquidated damages / contractual penalties);

• defects and remediation costs;

• handover and acceptance issues;

• termination and settlement of accounts after termination.

If your dispute is rooted in performance of a construction project — even if the legal label is framed differently — you should prepare for a mediation referral as the early procedural default.

Is mediation mandatory for the parties?

No party can be forced to settle. Mediation remains, in substance, a consensual process.

However, ignoring mediation or treating it as a purely formal checkbox can become a strategic and financial mistake, because the amended framework strengthens two practical levers:

1. Procedural expectations around participation
Courts will be focused on whether the parties genuinely engaged with the mediation step that the law now puts front and center.

2. Cost risk linked to conduct
If a party refuses mediation without a solid justification, or obstructs the process, it may face adverse cost consequences later — even if it ultimately wins on the merits.

In other words: settlement is voluntary, but constructive engagement becomes the legally safer posture.

Are there any exceptions?

Yes. Certain fast-track payment routes (commonly used in commercial recovery claims) may be excluded at the initial stage. But businesses should not treat this as a loophole: where a case transitions into ordinary litigation after the defendant challenges the order, the court may still be required to initiate mediation before the first substantive hearing stage.

The safer assumption for contractors and investors is simple: if the dispute is construction-related and ends up litigated in commercial proceedings, mediation will likely appear early — by default.

Why this matters in construction disputes

Construction disputes are rarely “only legal.” They are also:

• financial (cash flow, financing covenants, retention, bank guarantees),

• operational (continuation of works, handover, subcontractor stability),

• technical (defects, delay analysis, measurement, scope),

• reputational (future tenders, investor relations, public projects).

Mediation placed before the first hearing changes the playing field in three ways:

1) The first decisive step happens earlier

Many parties historically used early litigation to “set the tone” through pleadings and procedural manoeuvres. From March 2026, the first high-impact step may be a mediation session where narratives and numbers are tested early.

2) Weak documentation becomes more expensive

Mediation is not a substitute for evidence — it is a forum where the stronger, clearer story usually anchors the negotiation. Parties who arrive without a disciplined record (variations, instructions, site logs, approvals, minutes, notices) will find themselves negotiating from weakness.

3) “Settlement engineering” becomes a core skill

In construction disputes, a good deal is often not “pay vs. don’t pay,” but a structured commercial solution:

• staged payments,

• revised scope,

• partial settlements,

• security adjustments,

• warranty / defect handling protocols,

• timetable commitments,

• agreed expert procedures.

A mediation-first framework rewards parties who can design outcomes that keep the project — or the business — moving.

How contractors should adjust their dispute strategy

Build a mediation-ready claim file

Treat the first mediation meeting like a critical hearing. Prepare:

• a short, persuasive case summary (what happened and why you’re entitled);

• a timeline of key events (instructions, disruptions, milestones, handover);

• a quantified claim model (principal + interest + delay/prolongation + extras);

• key documents indexed and ready to share strategically;

• a realistic settlement range aligned with cash-flow needs.

Prepare technical support early

Construction mediation often succeeds when the numbers can be defended. Consider early involvement of:

• delay analysts (critical path / disruption narratives),

• quantity surveyors,

• technical experts for defect causation and remediation cost.

Decide what you actually want

Are you aiming for:

• fast payment,

• a project-continuity solution,

• risk containment before expert evidence explodes costs,

• or a principled fight with a clear litigation path?

Clarity here determines whether mediation is a genuine opportunity or a procedural trap.

How investors / employers should adjust their dispute strategy

Separate merits from business risk

You can be legally correct and still lose commercially through:

• prolonged uncertainty,

• stalled handovers,

• escalating expert costs,

• operational disruption.

Use the mediation step to test the real-world cost of “being right.”

Bring decision-makers and authority

Construction disputes often cannot settle without approvals (board, lenders, procurement rules). A common reason mediation fails is a party appearing without genuine authority to negotiate.

Use mediation to narrow the battlefield

Even if full settlement is unrealistic, mediation can deliver value by:

• narrowing issues (e.g., isolate a defects package),

• agreeing a joint expert protocol,

• setting interim performance/payment arrangements,

• resolving a portion of claims (partial settlement) to reduce litigation scope.

Practical checklist: what to do now (before March 2026)

For both contractors and investors:

• Review contracts and dispute clauses: align internal processes with a mediation-first reality.

• Strengthen project records: variations, instructions, approvals, site diaries, meeting minutes, acceptance protocols.

• Standardise notices and claims hygiene: late or unclear notices often become settlement obstacles.

• Build a “mediation pack” template: timeline + quantum + key documents + settlement options.

• Plan negotiation authority: know who must attend and what approvals are required.

• Pre-map settlement structures: consider staged payments, security, scope adjustments, remediation protocols.

From March 2026, the parties who treat early mediation as a strategic stage — not an interruption — are more likely to control risk, cost, and outcomes.

How we support clients in construction mediation and disputes

In construction disputes, outcomes are rarely achieved by legal arguments alone. Effective strategy combines procedural positioning, technical evidence planning, and commercial settlement design.

We help contractors, developers, and investors prepare mediation-ready cases, run negotiations with clear decision frameworks, and — where settlement is not achievable — move efficiently into litigation with a disciplined evidentiary strategy.

This publication is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.