Gloss to the decision of the Supreme Court of October 4, 2022, II USK 128/22, Legalis

Abstract

The subject of the publication is the analysis of the decision of the Supreme Court of October 4, 2022, II USK 128/22, in which the Court indicated that „evidence from expert opinions is of a special nature because it is used in cases requiring special information (Article 278 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure). For this reason, all rules regarding evidentiary proceedings, including Art. 217 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the light of Art. 286 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court is obliged to admit evidence from additional opinions of the same or other experts when necessary, i.e. when the opinion submitted in the case contains significant omissions, contradictions or does not explain important circumstances. It cannot be assumed that the court is obliged to admit evidence from subsequent experts in every case when the opinion submitted is unfavorable to the party. The need to appoint another expert should therefore result from the circumstances of the case, and not from the party’s dissatisfaction with the opinion submitted so far. However, such a need cannot be the party’s belief that further opinions will prove a thesis favorable to the party. The difference in the position expressed in the expert’s opinion and in the private out-of-court expert opinion cannot constitute such a basis. The author shares the Supreme Court’s view expressed in the commented judgment. It presents additional arguments supporting the accuracy of the Supreme Court’s position.