I PKN 596/98
AI generated
Supreme Court dismisses late appeal request due to client's own negligence in appointing counsel.
Legislator summary
AI generatedThe Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal because the client failed to appoint legal counsel in a timely manner, causing the appeal to be filed after the deadline. Although the client argued that the holiday period justified the delay and that the lawyer's appointment should reset the timeline, the court held that the client bears responsibility for their own negligence. The decision established that without valid reasons, a party cannot extend procedural deadlines by appointing counsel after the original period has expired.
Legislator headnote
AI generatedArt. 393 2 KPC; Art. 169 § 1 KPC: A party's own negligence or indecision in appointing counsel does not justify restoring a procedural deadline if the appointment occurs after the original period has expired.
Keywords
AI generated
procedural deadline
counsel appointment
client negligence
cassation appeal
time restoration
legal representation
court procedure
Cited Legislation
AI generatedArt. 393 2 KPC
Art. 169 § 1 KPC
Art. 393 5 KPC
Art. 393 4 KPC
Art. 393 12 KPC
Art. 393 8 § 2 KPC
Art. 168 § 1 KPC
Cited Case Law
AI generatedI CZ 138/71