This review of the Supreme Court’s case law in civil matters consists of two parts. In the first part, four judgments of the Supreme Court are briefly discussed. The first judgment concerns the end of the limitation period for claims raised by an entrepreneur against a consumer (second sentence of Art. 118 of the Civil Code). In particular, the judgment answers the question whether the limitation period ends on the last day of a calendar year or on the lapse of the day whose name or date corresponds to the beginning of the period. The second judgment concerns the problem of a conflict of claims of a Pauline creditor (actio pauliana) under Art. 527 of the Civil Code with claims of a mortgagee of a third party. The third judgment concerns the issue of admissibility of including the amount obtained by an heir under a so-called bank instruction (concerning disposal of funds in the event of death – Art. 56(1) of the Banking Law Act) in the estate within the meaning of Art. 1039 § 1 of the Civil Code. The fourth judgment concerns the consequences of failure to comply with the six-month time limit reserved for the filing of an application for registration of amendments to the articles of association of a limited liability company. The second part of the review includes more extensive comments on the four judgments of the Supreme Court. The first one includes the issue of admissibility of entering into a settlement agreement (Art. 917 of the Civil Code) when the dispute concerns the existence of a legal relationship, including a party questioning the validity of the settlement agreement on the basis of non-existence of the primary legal relationship. The second judgment concerns the admissibility and formal conditions that must be met by a public prosecutor’s application for entry of a judicial mortgage in the land and mortgage register. The third judgment concerns the problem of the scope of liability of the person entitled to legitim (forced share) for particular legacies or testamentary instructions. The fourth judgement concerns the issue of admissibility of formulating a claim for unjust enrichment in the event of disseminating the image of an individual without his/her consent.