Poland’s Two Leading Arbitration Institutions Overhaul Their Rules

On 1 January 2025, Poland’s two primary arbitration institutions – the Court of Arbitration at the Polish Chamber of Commerce (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Krajowej Izbie Gospodarczej, “SAKIG”) and the Lewiatan Court of Arbitration (Sąd Arbitrażowy przy Konfederacji Lewiatan, “Lewiatan CA”) – each introduced the updated arbitration rules (the “2025 SAKIG Rules” and “2025 Lewiatan Rules”, respectively; together, the “2025 Rules”).

The two reforms arrived at the same time and with broadly the same purpose – to make Polish institutional arbitration faster, more flexible, and more attractive to parties who might otherwise look elsewhere. Neither institution has reinvented itself, but the changes are real and, in places, quite significant. The topic has also come back into focus recently. A commentary on the 2025 Lewiatan Rules appeared last year, followed by the commentary on the 2025 SAKIG Rules earlier this year, providing practitioners with a fuller picture of both sets of rules.

This post walks through the key reforms, before drawing some wider observations on the direction of Polish institutional arbitration.

I. The 2025 SAKIG Rules

Commencement of Proceedings: Request for Arbitration Only

Under the previous SAKIG Rules, a claimant had a choice: arbitration could be commenced by filing either a statement of claim or a request for arbitration. The 2025 SAKIG Rules remove that optionality. Proceedings now commence exclusively upon the filing of a request for arbitration (section 20) – the approach also taken by the ICC, LCIA, SCC, and DIS – which must be accompanied by a copy of the arbitration agreement, proof of payment of the registration fee, and copies for the respondent and the arbitrators (section 21(2) of the 2025 SAKIG Rules). Evidence does not need to be attached at this stage.

Composition of the Tribunal: Opening Up Appointments

Previously, the sole arbitrator or presiding arbitrator had to be drawn from SAKIG’s List of Arbitrators as a default. That restriction has been repealed – the 2025 SAKIG Rules no longer refer to the List, and parties no longer receive it automatically from the Director General together with the invitation to nominate the arbitrator (section 19(1) of the previous Rules). The change also brings 2025 SAKIG Rules in line with the ICC, LCIA and SIAC Rules, none of which condition the appointment of a presiding arbitrator on membership of a closed institutional list.

Sole Arbitrator Threshold: Raised to PLN 100,000

Disputes where the amount in dispute does not exceed PLN 100,000 (EUR 23,000 equivalent) must now be decided by a sole arbitrator (section 15(3)), unless the parties agree otherwise (section 15(1)), with counterclaims and set-off defences counted toward that figure. The previous threshold was PLN 40,000 (EUR 9,000 equivalent). The increase makes practical sense: a three-person tribunal for a minor dispute adds cost and risks delaying the proceedings it is intended to resolve.

Language and Seat: Defaults Removed

This is arguably the most consequential change in the 2025 SAKIG Rules for international parties. Under the old rules, if the parties had not agreed otherwise, the default language of the proceedings was Polish, and the default seat was Warsaw. The 2025 SAKIG Rules remove both defaults. If the parties cannot agree, the tribunal decides after consulting them (sections 8 and 9).

The language change is particularly significant. Under the former Rules, the tribunal could allow another language only for specific procedural activities, such as examining a witness or considering a particular document. However, it could not change the language of the proceedings, which remained Polish (section 13 of the former Rules).

The seat change removes Warsaw, and thus Poland, as the default seat. Under the former Rules Warsaw remained the seat, unless the parties agreed otherwise (section 14 of the former Rules). This change places SAKIG in the same camp as the DIS, SIAC, and other rules which leave the determination of the seat to the tribunal.

Removing both defaults is a practical signal to foreign parties. It makes the 2025 SAKIG Rules more flexible for parties wishing to conduct proceedings in a language other than Polish or to seat the arbitration outside Warsaw.

Third-Party Funding: Mandatory Disclosure

The 2025 SAKIG Rules introduce, for the first time, an obligation to disclose third-party funding arrangements. The claimant must disclose any such arrangement when filing the request for arbitration; the respondent must disclose it in its answer (sections 21(1)(7) and 23(2)(7)). If a funding arrangement is entered into later in the proceedings, the relevant party must notify the tribunal promptly (section 24). Requiring disclosure at such an early stage is deliberate – the sooner arbitrators are aware of any funding arrangements, the sooner they can assess whether a conflict of interest arises. Similar requirements have been adopted by the ICC, HKIAC and SIAC, and SAKIG’s approach fits squarely within that emerging international trend toward greater transparency in funded disputes.

Early Determination

Section 29 of the 2025 SAKIG Rules introduces an early determination procedure – a mechanism previously incorporated into the 2016 SIAC Rules, 2018 HKIAC  Rules and LCIA Rules, and recently codified by 2026 ICC Rules. Under 2025 SAKIG Rules, a party may apply for early determination of any claim, defence, or issue in dispute on one of two grounds: either its own position on the matter is manifestly meritorious, or the opposing party’s position is manifestly without merit.

The commentary notes that the term “manifest” leaves tribunals considerable discretion and does not require the issue to be obvious prima facie. Whether the threshold is met will often be disputed, and the tribunal may reach that conclusion only after considering the parties’ arguments.

Emergency Arbitrator

The 2025 SAKIG Rules introduce an emergency arbitrator mechanism for the first time (section 31), following a model already well established in international arbitration. Before the tribunal is constituted, a party may apply for interim measures or evidence preservation. The Arbitral Council, one of  Court’s three bodies (section 1(3)), must appoint an emergency arbitrator within three business days, who then has 21 days to issue an order.

While orders issued by the emergency arbitrator are binding on the parties and carry the same force as interim measures granted by a constituted tribunal, according to section 31(12) the tribunal is not bound by them and may vary or set them aside at any point, even without a party’s application.

Award: Shorter Deadlines and Mandatory Draft Review

The time allowed for rendering an award has been cut from nine months to six months from the date the file is transmitted to the tribunal, with an additional cap of two months after the final hearing or last written submission (section 41(3)). This contrasts with the 2026 ICC’s Rules, which abandoned the standard six-month time limit in favour of a case-specific deadline set by the President of the ICC Court.

Before signing the award, the tribunal must submit a draft to the Court of Arbitration (one of  Court’s three bodies section 1(3)). The President of the Arbitral Council (another of  Court’s bodies section 1(3)) may offer comments that do not touch on the merits (section 42(2)). The mandatory draft review will be familiar to practitioners with ICC and SIAC experience.

II. The 2025 Lewiatan Rules

Commencement of Proceedings: Optional Request for Arbitration

Lewiatan CA has gone in the opposite direction from SAKIG on this point. Under the previous Lewiatan Rules, proceedings commenced only upon the filing of a statement of claim. The 2025 Rules give parties a choice: arbitration can now be initiated by either a request for arbitration or a statement of claim (section 3).

E-Filing as Default

Under the 2025 Lewiatan Rules, all submissions filed after the initiating document must be filed electronically unless the tribunal decides otherwise (section 16(6)). This change formalises what had in practice become standard behaviour and reflects the reality of how most arbitration proceedings are conducted today.

Expedited Procedure: Threshold Raised to PLN 200,000

The threshold for expedited arbitration has been raised from PLN 50,000 (EUR 11,500 equivalent) to PLN 200,000 (EUR 46,000 equivalent) (section 5). The fourfold increase is significant. At PLN 200,000, it becomes a genuinely viable option for a much broader range of cases, which should help reduce the cost and time burden on parties with mid-value disputes.

Third-Party Funding and Success Fees: Cost Consequences

Rather than imposing a disclosure obligation – as SAKIG has done – the 2025 Lewiatan Rules address third-party funding through its consequences for the costs of arbitration. Section 48(5) explicitly provides that, when allocating costs, the tribunal may take into account costs associated with third-party funding as well as success fees payable to legal representatives. The Rules are silent on disclosure, which leaves open the question of how arbitrators are to identify potential conflicts of interest arising from a funder’s relationship with members of the tribunal. In the commentary to the 2025 Lewiatan Rules, commentators have suggested that the tribunal may derive an implicit power to order disclosure from section 22(1), which grants it a general discretion to conduct the proceedings as it considers appropriate, read together with section 48(5). However, an express obligation – along the lines of what the ICC or SAKIG have adopted – would be a more straightforward solution.

III. Some Observations

A few things are worth drawing out in conclusion.

The two institutions have gone their own ways on some key points. On commencement of proceedings, they have reached opposite conclusions – SAKIG mandating a request for arbitration, Lewiatan making it optional. On third-party funding, the contrast is even sharper: SAKIG imposes an express disclosure obligation at the earliest possible stage, while Lewiatan arguably addresses the issue only through cost allocation. An express disclosure requirement in the Lewiatan Rules would plug that gap.

Taken together, the 2025 Rules bring Polish institutional arbitration closer to the international mainstream. The removal of SAKIG’s closed arbitrator list, the abandonment of the Polish language and Warsaw seat as defaults, the introduction of emergency arbitrators, early determination, mandatory third-party funding disclosure, and mandatory draft award review – all reflect choices already made by major arbitration institutions.

Whether any of this actually draws more international parties to Poland remains an open question. Foreign parties still reportedly account for a small minority in both institutions’ caseloads, and rules alone will not change that. What also matters is the availability of experienced arbitrators, the reputation of the Polish courts, and the simple fact that Poland is not yet a well-known arbitral destination outside the region. That said, the 2025 Rules should at least make arbitration a more compelling alternative to the Polish state courts for domestic disputes – and that, for now, may be the more realistic measure of success.