Abstract

The article is a partially critical comment on the Supreme Court judgment accepting an extraordinary appeal against an order for payment under the writ of payment proceedings. The order for payment was issued against the heirs of the primary debtor, who lived in a hardship situation. For this reason the discussed judgment illustrates the problem of a conflict of two values, namely social justice and stability of judicial decisions. In the commented judgment, the Supreme Court gave primacy to the former of those values. However, the statement of the grounds seems to suggest that the decision was not preceded by an appropriate consideration of consequences from the viewpoint of the postulated legal certainty. Partially disputable as also the Supreme Court’s views as regards the events which were treated as justifying acceptance of the extraordinary appeal, namely the fact that the order for payment was issues notwithstanding the doubts as to the circumstances outlined in the suit and waiving the obligation to include in the conclusion of the order for payment the statutorily required reservation concerning limitation of a debtor’s liability.