From the judgment justification:

Since 2010, the Defendant has been providing accounting services to the Claimant. In the course of delivering these services, significant discrepancies eventually arose in areas including but not limited to: fixed assets, cash settlements, payrolls, accruals, financial revenues and costs, operational revenues and costs. These discrepancies dated back at least four years. The lack of accurately maintained accounting records exposed the Claimant to tax penalties and fines, and also prevented the Claimant from generating current financial results, thus hindering her ability to undertake investment actions. 

These discrepancies became the source of conflict, which the parties attempted to resolve in a settlement on 17 July 2020. Under its provisions, the parties terminated the accounting service agreement. The Defendants also committed to returning all financial-accounting documentation belonging to the Claimant within three days. In §2 sec. 3 of the Settlement, the Defendants also committed to covering the costs associated with bringing the Claimant's accounting books up to the standards required by the Accounting Act, as well as any administrative fines or interest on overdue taxes imposed due to the discrepancies. 

[...]

In the Information attached to the Claim and the Defendants' Statement dated 24 August 2020, the parties established that the total amount of the Claimant's damage, which the Defendants agreed to cover in the settlement, amounted to 760,000 zlotys. The Defendants committed to pay 250,000 zlotys towards this by 26 August 2020. 

On 26 August 2020, the Defendants indeed transferred 200,000 zlotys to the Claimant's bank account, requesting additional time to settle the remaining 50,000 zlotys due to the need to acquire these funds, but no later than 4 September 2020. The Claimant agreed to this. 

However, the Defendants did not settle the outstanding amount by this deadline. 

On that same day, the Defendants declared to the Claimant their intention to retract from the legal effects of the settlement, claiming it was concluded under duress. In their declaration, the Defendants asserted that prior to the agreement, the Claimant's new accountant, Mr […], made statements towards them such as: “You’ll be left with nothing,” “One call to the prosecutors and you’re done,” and that: “You have no negotiating advantages.” According to the Defendants, Mr […] directly threatened them with criminal proceedings to coerce the settlement. Meanwhile, the Defendants were ready to restore the financial-accounting records to a lawful state on their own, had the Claimant not revoked their access to data on the computer at her premises. The damage might have been avoided in such case. 

Indeed, in a recording of a conversation on 21 August 2020 attached to the response to the claim, Mr […] stated, among other things, that “there's no point in exaggerating, something will move by Monday (to the prosecutors - note O.Sz.) - all those matters will commence on Monday.” Furthermore, he implied that “I wouldn’t want to proceed to the prosecutor’s” and repeatedly, more or less explicitly, suggested that he would report suspicions of the Defendants' misconduct in their accounting practices to the authorities. However, he did not disclose any further details about what specific offenses these might be, or which particular actions of the Defendants these might stem from. 

Apart from the general statements […] described above, no other threats were articulated against the Defendants that could improperly influence their autonomy in concluding the settlement on 17 July 2020. 

[...]

The Arbitral Tribunal considered as follows: 

The claim in this case deserves to be entirely upheld. 

The Arbitral Tribunal does not doubt that the parties involved in these proceedings validly and effectively concluded the settlement from 17 July 2020. The main argument of the Defendants aiming to annul the legal force of the settlement is the declaration of withdrawal from its legal effects due to the alleged coercion during its conclusion. 

Such a declaration was filed by the Defendants in a letter dated 4 September 2020 and requires thorough analysis.

According to Article 87 of the Civil Code, anyone who made a declaration of will under unlawful duress by the other party or a third party may retract it, if it appears that they could fear serious personal or material harm to themselves or others. The flaw described in Article 87 CC. pertains to a malfunction in the will mechanism, i.e., an irregularity in decision-making (Wolter, Civil Law 1986, pp. 312 and 320). 

For a party to retract a declaration of will made under duress, the threat must be both unlawful and serious in that the person making the declaration could fear serious personal or material harm. This essentially subjective criterion is subject to objectification, with its basic parameters indicated in the statute itself (see: commentary to Article 87 CC. edited by Pietrzykowski, 10th edition, Warsaw 2020, Legalis system). 

Applying the above considerations to this case, it cannot be accepted that the unspecified threats of reporting the matter to the prosecutors placed the Defendants in a significant threat, either personal or financial, which could influence their legal actions. Such a conclusion would be overly far-reaching. Statements made by the tax advisor […] during the conversation with the Defendants on 21 August 2020, in the view of the Arbitral Tribunal clearly contradict the ethics of tax advisors and should themselves prompt disciplinary proceedings. 

However, they could not affect the correctness of the Defendants' decision-making process.

[...] 

The recorded meeting by the Defendants took place on Friday, 21 August 2020, while the statement from the Defendants was filed only on Monday, three days later. The Defendants thus had sufficient time to calmly consider their concerns and consult with a lawyer. After all, the Defendants are professional accountants, possessing higher than average legal awareness. Moreover, their profession inherently requires utmost diligence in maintaining accounting records. Any irregularities in this domain threaten the State Treasury's interest and undermine the certainty of commercial transactions, which have been sanctioned by the legislator with tax-penal liability. 

Choosing in 2010 to manage the Claimant's accounting books, the Defendants must have been aware of this responsibility. If the Defendants believed the Claimant's books were correctly maintained, they objectively had nothing to fear. As professional accountants, they should not be affected by such suggestions or client jabs. For the same reason, if the Claimant's books were poorly maintained, the Defendants must have been aware of potential legal liability since at least 2016 when these irregularities began. Thus, they should have anticipated the possibility of criminal proceedings well before Mr. […]'s conversation on 21 August 2020, and it is hard to imagine that this conversation alone induced in the Defendants such a state of threat that it resulted in a malfunction of their will mechanism.

This assertion is supported by an analysis of subsequent events. On 26 August 2020, the Defendants paid 200,000 zlotys to the Claimant's account as part payment of costs and requested additional time to pay the outstanding 50,000 zlotys. The fact of making this transfer and the email content do not, in any way, indicate that the Defendants' capacity to make decisions was in any way compromised or excluded. 

Moreover, well-established case law asserts that the behavior of the threatener, involving threats to initiate criminal proceedings, can only in certain circumstances be considered unlawful. Legal provisions often afford the threatener a choice regarding pursuing rights through civil or criminal means (see: Supreme Court judgment of 2 February 2018, ref. II CSK 324/17, also: Supreme Court Ruling - Labour, Social Insurance and Public Affairs Chamber of 23 March 2012, II PK 284/11, also: Supreme Administrative Court Decision of 2 February 2005, OSK 1055/04). 

No additional evidence was provided by the Defendants to suggest unlawful threats were made by the Claimant or Mr. […]. A motion to question Mr. […], submitted in violation of §18 clause 2 of the Court Regulations, or a motion to conduct evidence with an expert opinion in accountancy, which - for the reasons previously stated - the Arbitral Tribunal deemed unnecessary, cannot be considered as such evidence. Undoubtedly, such a motion must be contemplated if the Claimant chooses to assert further compensation claims against the Defendants beyond the accepted 250,000 zlotys, indicated in the statement of 24 August 2020. However, these considerations are beyond the scope of this case.

Given the above, the Arbitral Tribunal determined that the threat made by […] to the Defendants regarding the initiation of criminal proceedings during the conversation on 21 August 2020 did not constitute an unlawful threat capable of forming a basis for the Defendants to avoid the legal consequences of the settlement of 17 July 2020 under Article 87 CC. 

Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded the Claimant the sum of 50,000 zlotys with statutory interest for delay in payment from the date of filing the claim, under Article 917 CC. in connection with §2 clauses 3 and 4 of the settlement of 17 July 2020, in relation to the Defendants' commitment from 24 August 2020 to pay 250,000 zlotys. 

As for the costs, the Arbitral Tribunal decided in accordance with §20 clause 4 of the Court Regulations, concluding that the Claimant won the case entirely and is entitled to reimbursement of arbitration fees (4,206.60 zlotys) and legal representation costs, which according to §9 sec. 1 point 6 of the Fees Tariff, amount to 4,200 zlotys. Hence, a total of 8,408.00 zlotys in costs is to be awarded to the Claimant, with statutory interest from the judgment date until payment. 

The case was deliberated by Arbiter Ms Olga Szczęsna.

The judgment was rendered 15 days after the claim was filed.