start

A link between inflicted damage and certain events causing it frequently requires complex review of evidence, and even expert opinions. This took place in a case conducted by adwokat Jan Ciećwierz on behalf of a plaintiff. A court had to determine whether material harm incurred by the plaintiff, company B, arose from unlawful actions by company E. The first company sought compensation for lost rent due to termination of a lease agreement, whereby the second considered itself entitled to resign from the premises without any consequences.

The agreement covered commercial space with an area of 635 square meters. The parties concluded it for a defined period from 17 October 2000 to 31 January 2006, but foresaw its termination with six months notice. In September 2002, the defendant exercised this right.

The plaintiff warned him at the time that an agreement concluded for a specific time period cannot be prematurely terminated. When the defendant nevertheless vacated premises and ceased to pay rent, a subsequent lease agreement was concluded with company S. It covered a larger area with a lower rate per square meter. The plaintiff sought compensation for damage from the previous tenant and filed such a lawsuit in court.

In the view of the Regional Court (hereafter: SO) the essence of the dispute was reduced to an assessment of the ability to terminate a lease agreement of specific duration and the effectiveness of its provisions in this regard.

It resolved this issue in favour of the plaintiff, but nevertheless dismissed the lawsuit. Why? Because he seemingly failed to prove either damage or a causal link between actions of the defendant and his losses. It found that the plaintiff’s assets were only slightly impaired due to the change of price.

A Court of Appeal reviewing this case concurred with the lower court as to the ineffectiveness of terminating a lease agreement of fixed duration. It ruled, however, that the regional court erroneously reached its conclusions concerning damage and causal link. It clarified that if an agreement is binding until the end of January 2006, the plaintiff had the right until this date to charge higher rent from a smaller area.

“The conclusion of a new agreement on different terms does not prejudge lack of damage on the part of the plaintiff; he had to dedicate a significantly larger area of premises in order to obtain income similar to that under the agreement with the defendant,” explains  adwokat Ciećwierz. That which the SO assessed as an argument on non-existence of damage (new agreement concluded on different terms) is essentially a circumstance that may influence an evaluation of its level, thereby reducing eventual compensation.

According to the Court of Appeal, the level of damage to the owner of premises also did not arise solely from the arithmetic difference arising from a multiplication of the area of premises under both agreements and fees per square meter. It had to be determined whether the new fee was only a consequence of the increased area of leased premises, or whether, for example, it arose from the forced situation in which the plaintiff found himself in seeking to lease the area vacated by the defendant as swiftly as possible.

“In this case, the leasing of premises to a third party must be judged solely as an action aimed at limiting damage, thereby limiting compensatory liability of company E.”, concludes adwokat Ciećwierz.