Even a case that is admissible may end in failure. Why is it important to set out your claims specifically, to submit evidence and to attend the hearing?
Participation in legal proceedings is not merely a matter of formally filing a claim. This is highlighted by a ruling of the Supreme Court dated 27 May 2026, ref. no. 25 Cdo 1467/2025, issued in a dispute concerning insurance compensation for alleged permanent consequences of an accident. The claimant sought CZK 8.5 million, but failed to describe in sufficient detail how the accident was alleged to have occurred. Furthermore, his representative failed to appear at the court hearing without offering an excuse. The claim was dismissed and the Supreme Court rejected the appeal as inadmissible.
Admissibility of the claim vs. the burden of proof
The essence of the Supreme Court’s decision lies in the distinction between the admissibility of a claim and the burden of proof. A claim must define the claim in such a way that it cannot be confused with another. However, it does not need to contain, at the time of filing, all the assertions necessary for the court to accommodate it. If these assertions are missing, this does not automatically constitute a defect in the claim that would prevent it from being heard; however, the claimant must supplement them during the proceedings, otherwise they risk procedural failure – the dismissal of the claim.
Duty to provide guidance during proceedings
If, during the court proceedings, it transpires that a party
- (i) has not set out all the relevant facts,
- (ii) has set out the relevant facts incompletely,
- (iii) the matter may be assessed from a legal perspective differently from the party’s legal opinion, or
- (iv) the party has not yet proposed the evidence necessary to prove all their disputed claims,
the presiding judge shall call upon the party to supplement their claims or to specify the evidence, and shall advise them of the consequences of failing to comply with this request.
However, the court may only provide this instruction to a party who is present at the hearing, or to their representative who is present. If, in accordance with the law, the court proceeds in the absence of a duly summoned party or representative, it is not obliged to adjourn the hearing solely to give them the opportunity to supplement their assertions of fact or in law.
Practical implications
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a practical reminder for all parties involved in legal proceedings. It is not sufficient to assume that ‘the evidence will clarify the matter’ – it is first necessary to state specifically what happened and to identify the evidence by which each material claim is to be substantiated. It is equally important to monitor the progress of the proceedings, respond to the opposing party’s arguments and, above all, ensure attendance at hearings; failure to attend may mean missing the opportunity to remedy deficiencies on which the outcome of the dispute will depend.
Source: Supreme Court ruling of 27 May 2026, case no. 25 Cdo 1467/2025
Author: Miroslav Kopeček, Senior Associate, Dispute Resolution, LYNX Czech Republic