In a previous article, we analyzed the phenomenon where courts typically reduce the attorney fees awarded to the winning party. This essentially forces the winner to incur unjustified losses, indirectly causing market distortion. Now, the Supreme Court has responded to this phenomenon with a precedent-setting, binding decision. Let's first look at the key developments and then how this affects litigation strategy!

If you’ve never sued or been sued, you may be forgiven for thinking that the costs of the lawsuit are paid by the losing party. However, after a case is closed, the winner of the suit may easily find that its win was a Pyrrhic victory, and that it is left with substantial costs to shoulder, without compensation. What are the impacts of this on business and how should parties best manage the related risks?

The new Civil Procedure Code), enacted almost 3 years ago, placed the conduct of proceedings on stricter foundations. As a visible result of this, the number of lawsuits has dropped dramatically in recent years: more than 20% fewer disputes have been filed with the district courts and around 50% fewer at the regional courts than before. Perhaps this is also the reason why, under a bill recently passed, the harsh rules that had seemed carved in stone are likely to be softened. 

Most have heard of the difference between Anglo-Saxon case law and the continental courts – and perhaps that Hungary has so far firmly belonged to the latter camp. However, an amendment to the law that has recently been adopted represents a major step in the opposite direction – one that could result in thousands of Supreme Court rulings becoming precedents overnight.