Legal Q&A · Litigation & Damages

We are being sued for a contractual penalty for each day of delay. Can the court reduce it?

Law as at 29 August 2026

Short answer

It can, but not automatically. In commercial relationships, Section 301 of the Commercial Code allows a court to reduce an excessively high contractual penalty, but this is an exceptional intervention in freedom of contract. Where a daily rate is agreed, a high accumulated total does not itself mean the penalty is excessive: the rate and circumstances when the obligation was breached are decisive. The defence therefore rests on specific assertions and evidence, rather than an impression of the final amount.

A penalty agreed at a daily rate can grow during a long dispute to an amount that threatens a business’s survival. Whether the court reduces it depends on what you assert and prove in the proceedings, rather than how high the total becomes.

The court may reduce a penalty, not simply waive it

The Commercial Code (Act No. 513/1991 Coll.) grants the court a power to reduce penalties:

The court may reduce an excessively high contractual penalty, taking account of the value and importance of the obligation secured, down to the amount of loss caused before the court’s decision by the breach of the contractual obligation covered by the penalty. The injured party is entitled to compensation for loss arising later, up to the amount of the contractual penalty, under Sections 373 et seq.

Section 301 of the Commercial Code (unofficial English translation)

In case 3 Obdo 11/2019, the Slovak Supreme Court summarised that reduction is an exceptional intervention in freedom of contract, justified only in appropriate cases. The court may not rely on a single criterion: it considers the value and importance of the secured obligation, whether and how much loss the creditor suffered, and the debtor’s fault and attitude to the obligation undertaken.

A high total does not itself mean the penalty is excessive

For a daily rate, the same decision makes the amount of the penalty when the obligation was breached decisive, rather than the total on the judgment date. If the total grew only because the breach continued for a long time, that does not establish excessiveness: the debtor controlled the growth and could have stopped it at any time by performing the obligation.

A defence based solely on the final amount being high or exceeding the secured obligation will therefore usually fail. A more meaningful approach addresses the rate itself, its disproportion to the importance of the secured obligation, and the absence of any loss to the creditor from the breach.

Czech developments: assessing the penalty over separate periods of delay

Czech reduction rules rest on the differently worded Section 2051 of Act No. 89/2012 Coll., but the development can usefully inform arguments. In case 23 Cdo 1051/2025, the Czech Supreme Court overturned a decision that had treated a daily rate as reasonable and the accumulated total as merely the result of prolonged delay. Since entitlement to the penalty arises separately each day, the court should examine the penalty’s function and the actual impact on the creditor’s protected interests during individual periods. It may reduce only the part of the claim relating to a period in which the penalty was no longer reasonable.

How to build the defence

A properly reasoned request for reduction must be made in the proceedings, supported by the necessary assertions and evidence: what obligation the penalty secured and its importance to the creditor, the loss actually suffered, how the situation changed over time and what the breach actually caused. Alongside reduction, the penalty clause itself should be checked for sufficient certainty and valid conclusion. We discuss this in contractual penalties.

If the relationship is not commercial, the court’s reduction power is governed by Section 545a of the Civil Code, and the criteria differ in part. This is another reason to assess the agreement’s legal regime at the outset of a dispute.

How we can help

We take over court representation in contractual penalty disputes and prepare the defence, including a request for reduction. Before a new agreement is signed, a contract review identifies risky penalty clauses. For your own contracts, we design penalties that can withstand litigation through our bespoke commercial agreements service.

If the claim has already been served on you, contact us promptly: the deadlines for responding are running.

This answer provides general information on the law as at 29 August 2026. It does not constitute legal services or replace an assessment of an individual case. The details of your situation may differ. Book a consultation to discuss them.

More legal questions

All questions and answers
  1. The works are defective. Can we claim damages as well as a price reduction? Yes, but the claims must be kept distinct. What can be obtained through defect remedies, such as repair, a price reduction or replacement performance, cannot be claimed again as damages. Consequential losses not covered by the reduction, such as profits lost during production downtime or costs caused by the defect in dealings with your customers, are claimed separately as damages. Note the statutory limit: a price reduction excludes lost profits arising from the very missing characteristic to which the reduction relates.
  2. The managing director caused the company loss, but the company is not suing. Can a member bring the claim? Yes. If the company does not pursue its own claims, typically because the wrongdoer is also its managing director or has majority support, any member may bring a claim on the company's behalf under Section 122(3) of the Commercial Code. Any recovery belongs to the company, rather than the member bringing the action. That member bears the litigation costs and is entitled to reimbursement on success. The action alone does not address the director remaining in office, so it is usually combined with other steps.
  3. We signed an agreement with an arbitration clause. Can the dispute still be brought before an ordinary court? In a business-to-business relationship, lack of jurisdiction must be raised promptly during the arbitration. If the tribunal makes a preliminary ruling confirming jurisdiction, an application to the court must be filed within 30 days after delivery of that ruling; an action to set aside the award generally has a 60-day period from delivery and is limited to statutory grounds. Enforcement review is narrower and does not replace a missed objection that the arbitration agreement is invalid or non-existent. An application to stop enforcement filed within 15 days after notice has suspensive effect, but it must rely on a permissible enforcement ground.
  4. Our company did not read a judgment in its electronic mailbox. Is it still treated as served? Generally yes. A legal entity's electronic mailbox is activated for service by law, and a judgment is served personally: service occurs when the delivery receipt is confirmed or, at the latest, when the 15-day collection period expires, even if nobody opened the message. The appeal period runs from service, after which the judgment becomes final. Later remedies are narrow and require proof of objective reasons, so monitoring the mailbox is cheaper than explaining afterwards.

Cannot find your question? Ask your own question

Facing this situation?

Tell us what you need help with.

Describe your situation. We will review it and tell you within 24 hours whether and how we can help, including an indicative fee.

  1. 1Send your enquiry via this form
  2. 2Within 24 h you get a price confirmation and plan
  3. 3We start work only after your approval
Mgr. Patrik Tulinský, LL.M. Czech and Slovak attorney · SAK 300422 · ČAK 19654

Not keen on calls or email? Message us on WhatsApp →
Prefer to book a time right away? Book a consultation →
Or email us about this matter.

PDF, Word, images, ZIP… max 10 MB per file, 30 MB total.

Submitting this form does not create an engagement or attorney-client relationship. Before taking on a matter we run a conflict-of-interest check, so please do not send sensitive originals until we confirm the matter together.

Contact a lawyer