A very interesting professional experience is representing the largest Polish Christmas tree producer, company A. with its registered office in M., in a dispute with the largest Christmas tree producer in Europe, company G. with its registered office in S. Mr Blumski took part in a hearing before a court in Kolding, Denmark. This is probably the largest litigation in the industry in Europe today.

Invoice claims on the one hand and counterclaims for damages on the other. A substantively and evidentially extremely interesting case with the additional major difficulty of being conducted before a foreign court (Danish procedure, Danish language) with foreign law jurisdiction, witnesses, experts and documents from three different countries (Denmark, Scotland and Poland) and drafted in three languages. And in close cooperation with the law firm of another European Union country.

What are the impressions?

The hearing took place a year and a half after the mediation session, so it sounds very familiar. The Danish court therefore seems to be just as crushed by the volume of cases as the Polish court, and until the hearing the exchange of letters looked, in terms of pace, quite similar to that in Poland. However, in spite of the fact that the case is difficult both in terms of substantive law and evidence, three experts were involved, there was also film evidence, photographs, witnesses were interviewed and a lot of documents were filed, the Danish judge managed the evidence and all the statements in two days.

As in Poland, the court, before the hearing, forced the parties to file all pleadings and motions and to refer to the written opinion of the Danish expert. At the two-day hearing itself, which lasted several hours in total, the witnesses, the parties and the experts were listened to. Once the parties were seated (identically located as in Poland, the plaintiff, the defendant, their attorneys, the person heard and the audience), it began with the parties’ opening statements, with a discussion of the case forming part of the plaintiff’s (cross-defendant’s) attorney’s speech. The court then, still on the first day, listened to (first) the parties and all witnesses. On the second day, the court listened to the experts, one of whom was court-appointed and the other two who were also witnesses had previously presented their own expert reports commissioned by us – all of whom were questioned. As in a Polish commercial court, it was primarily the attorneys of the parties who had the burden of asking the relevant questions. Long before the hearing, we knew the schedule, which included 45 minutes each for closing speeches and further time for both sides’ replies.

There were no togas (they will be compulsory before the court of second instance) and the atmosphere was professional, but a little looser. The judge was the last to appear in the room and the first to leave, and each entry and exit was accompanied by an uprising of all present until she took her seat (or left the room). The judge was awe-inspiring but far from unsympathetic or unempathetic. With the exception of the closing statements, both the attorneys and the interrogators were seated.

It took several weeks to await the verdict, but immediately, without a separate request, the verdict was accompanied by an explanatory statement, part of which is a summary of the individual testimonies.

And of interest – there were computer screens in front of the seats for the attorneys and witnesses, you could clearly see the evidence in question at any given moment. On the walls of the courtroom, as in the second photo, you could see the paintings. And: only professional attorneys could bring phones into court, so the clients were cut off from the outside world.