Can a livery yard retain a horse for unpaid fees in Poland?

Can a yard retain your horse over unpaid livery fees in Poland? An owner wants to move their horse, but the operator refuses to release it until several months of arrears are paid. An unpaid invoice alone does not establish a right to keep the horse. The answer depends on the debt, the payment arrangements and any valid retention clause. Livery fees must also be distinguished from separately reimbursable expenses.

This article concerns Polish law as at 5 November 2026. The Act of 23 April 1964 - Civil Code (consolidated text: Journal of Laws 2026, item 795), referred to below as the Polish Civil Code (k.c.).

Can the owner collect the horse despite unpaid fees?

Article 844 § 1 k.c. is the starting point where safekeeping rules apply to the horse’s care. It allows the depositor to demand the return of the entrusted property at any time, even under a fixed-term agreement.^[1] A horse is not a thing. However, provisions concerning things apply as appropriate to matters not regulated by animal protection legislation. This follows from Article 1(1) and (2) of the Act of 21 August 1997 on the Protection of Animals.^[2]

A livery agreement may combine safekeeping with feeding, turnout, training and other services. The parties’ actual obligations determine which provisions apply. Simply calling the agreement a ‘stable rental’ does not establish that it concerns only the provision of space.

Collecting the horse and settling the account are separate issues. Releasing the animal does not extinguish an existing debt. Equally, a right to payment does not allow the operator to choose any means of compelling payment. Refusing to release the horse requires a specific statutory basis or an effective contractual provision.

Retaining a horse for unpaid livery fees - the legal basis

Article 461 § 1 k.c. allows a person obliged to return someone else’s property to retain it for specified claims. These concern reimbursement of expenditure on the property or compensation for damage caused by it. Retention may continue until those claims are satisfied or secured.^[3] With a horse, this may raise the question of reimbursement for justified expenditure on its upkeep or treatment. It must first be established whether the livery operator actually has such a claim and against whom.

The provision does not itself create an obligation to reimburse expenditure. It secures a claim that requires its own legal basis.^[3] Calling arrears ‘expenditure’ or stating a total balance is therefore insufficient. The operator must explain what was spent, for which period and why the person seeking the horse’s return is liable for it.

Article 461 § 1 k.c. refers both to satisfying and to securing the claim. Where retention is valid on that basis, adequate security may therefore permit collection without paying the entire disputed sum first. Not every proposed form of security will be sufficient.

Livery fees and expenditure on the horse

The agreed monthly fee is generally remuneration for the livery services. Reimbursement of expenses is a different category of payment. For safekeeping, Article 842 k.c. requires the depositor to reimburse expenditure incurred for proper safekeeping, together with statutory interest. Legal scholarship recognises, however, that the remuneration may already include those expenses.^[4] In that situation, the client should not be charged twice for the same costs.

Example: the parties agree a monthly livery price covering a box, hay, bedding and daily care. If the client fails to pay, the operator cannot justify retention under Article 461 § 1 k.c. simply by saying that part of the price pays for hay. The nature of the contractual debt must be established.

The position requires separate consideration if the operator has paid a justified emergency veterinary bill that falls outside the monthly fee. Relevant matters include the authority given, the need for intervention, the contract, treatment records and who was obliged to bear the cost. Paying an invoice does not, by itself, establish every condition for retaining the horse.

What do the Supreme Court decisions establish?

In its judgment of 23 November 1998, II CKN 53/98, the Polish Supreme Court held that remuneration for repairing a car was not expenditure within Article 461 § 1 k.c. That provision therefore did not entitle the repairer to retain the repaired vehicle until the service was paid for.^[5] The Supreme Court also referred to this distinction in its judgment of 14 February 2007, II CNP 70/06.^[6]

Both decisions concerned car repairs, not horse livery. They help explain why payment for a service should not automatically be equated with reimbursable expenditure. They do not resolve every possible basis for refusing to release a horse, particularly the terms of a specific agreement.

Can the operator rely on simultaneous performance?

Alongside Article 461 § 1 k.c., Article 488 § 2 k.c. may arise in these disputes. It concerns withholding reciprocal performance until the other party offers its own performance where the obligations should be performed simultaneously. This is a different legal mechanism from retaining property to secure expenditure.

First, establish whether the agreement is reciprocal within Article 487 § 2 k.c. Then identify which obligations are exchanged for one another and when each must be performed. The agreed payment dates and the continuous nature of caring for a horse are particularly relevant. Applying Article 488 § 2 k.c. to continuous obligations raises reservations in legal scholarship.^[7] Saying that ‘both sides have obligations, so the horse stays until payment’ is therefore not a sufficient explanation.

In II CKN 53/98, the Supreme Court did not assess the application of Article 488 § 1 k.c. because the appellant had not alleged a breach of that provision.^[5] The judgment should therefore not be presented as deciding that question as well.

What difference does a clause in the livery agreement make?

The parties may agree a contractual right of retention, including on terms different from the conditions in Article 461 § 1 k.c.^[3] The clause must respect the limits of freedom of contract in Article 353¹ k.c. Article 58 k.c. addresses the consequences of exceeding those limits. Its content and purpose must comply with applicable law, the nature of the legal relationship and the principles of social coexistence recognised by Polish law.^[8]

A consumer contract must also be assessed under Article 385¹ § 1 k.c. A term that was not individually negotiated may not bind the consumer. This applies if it shapes their rights and obligations contrary to good practice and grossly infringes their interests. Signing a standard form does not establish that every term was individually negotiated, as follows from Article 385¹ § 3 k.c.

Relevant questions include which debts the clause secures, whether their amount can be established and what conditions it sets for releasing the horse. If the clause appears in yard rules, check whether those rules became part of the agreement under Article 384 k.c. Displaying them on a stable noticeboard does not settle the issue.

I discuss the arrangements worth making before entrusting a horse to a yard in the article on livery agreements (Polish version).

Can the yard sell a retained horse?

A right of retention does not itself authorise the sale of the horse or the transfer of ownership to the operator. It secures a particular claim rather than allowing the creditor to satisfy it by independently disposing of the retained property.^[3] Nor does retention alone permit the operator to use the horse, for example for paid riding lessons. That requires a separate basis, such as appropriate authority from the owner.

A payment dispute does not remove the duty to treat the animal humanely. This duty follows from Article 5 of the Act on the Protection of Animals, while Article 6(1a) of that Act prohibits animal abuse.^[2] Withholding necessary care, feed or water to force payment is unacceptable. Charging for the horse’s continued stay requires establishing the basis and conditions of that stay. It cannot be assumed that every sum charged while release is refused will be payable by the owner.

What should you establish when a yard refuses to release a horse?

If a yard retains your horse over unpaid livery fees, first ask for a written explanation. The operator should identify the debt, its amount and the basis on which release is being made conditional on payment. The owner should clearly state when they require the horse to be released and which parts of the account they dispute.

Start with the agreement and yard rules. Also collect payment correspondence, invoices, payment confirmations and evidence of additional expenses. If someone other than the owner entered into the agreement, documents establishing that person’s authority also matter. Do not assume without checking that the person named as debtor on an invoice is the same person entitled to collect the horse.

A properly prepared agreement should address payment, extraordinary expenditure, termination and collection of the horse. This helps reduce disputes for both owners and operators. I prepare and review these agreements and advise on the parties’ financial arrangements.

Read also

• Horse injured at a livery yard in Poland - who is liable?

Author: Witold Łukasik, lawyer. This article is for information only and does not constitute legal advice. An assessment of a specific matter requires its documents and circumstances to be examined.

Sources and notes

1. J. Górecki, in K. Osajda (series ed.), W. Borysiak (volume ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 36th ed., 2026, discussion of Article 844 k.c., point 1.
2. Act of 21 August 1997 on the Protection of Animals (consolidated text: Journal of Laws 2023, item 1580, as amended), Article 1(1) and (2), Article 5 and Article 6(1a). Official Polish text on ELI.
3. R. Morek, in K. Osajda (series ed.), W. Borysiak (volume ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 36th ed., 2026, discussion of Article 461 k.c., particularly points 1-5, 7, 12-13, 15, 18 and 21.
4. J. Górecki, in K. Osajda (series ed.), W. Borysiak (volume ed.), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 36th ed., 2026, discussion of Article 842 k.c., points 1-2. See also K. Zagrobelny, in E. Gniewek, P. Machnikowski (eds), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 12th ed., 2025, discussion of Article 842 k.c.
5. Polish Supreme Court judgment of 23 November 1998, II CKN 53/98, reasons, Legalis no. 355807. The case concerned remuneration for car repairs. The Court did not assess Article 488 § 1 k.c.
6. Polish Supreme Court judgment of 14 February 2007, II CNP 70/06, reasons, Legalis no. 140175. The Court accepted the objection concerning Article 461 § 1 k.c., but dismissed the complaint seeking a declaration that a final judgment was unlawful. Full judgment on the Supreme Court website.
7. P. Machnikowski, in P. Machnikowski (ed.), Zobowiązania. Część ogólna. Tom II. Komentarz, 1st ed., 2024, discussion of Article 488 k.c., section II, points 1-2, and section III, points 2, 4 and 17-18.
8. P. Machnikowski, in E. Gniewek, P. Machnikowski (eds), Kodeks cywilny. Komentarz, 12th ed., 2025, discussion of Article 353¹ k.c., section II, point 3, and sections III-V. See also the official Polish Civil Code text on ELI.

Photo: Thomas P, Pexels, used under the Pexels licence. The photograph is illustrative.