Presumptive limitation: disputing the debt in court destroys the presumption of payment
The Évora Court of Appeal overturned a judgment that had found a lawyer’s fee claim partially time-barred under article 317(c) of the Civil Code (the two-year presumptive limitation for professionals’ fees). The court recalled that presumptive limitation does not extinguish the obligation — it merely presumes payment — and that the presumption is rebutted by tacit admission, arising from conduct in court incompatible with it (articles 313 and 314 of the Civil Code). That is what happened: the defendant claimed to have paid everything, yet simultaneously disputed the amounts claimed as unproven, conduct incompatible with performance. A lesson that cuts across fees, services and supplies: whoever invokes presumptive limitation cannot, at the same time, dispute the existence or the amount of the debt. Ref.: Évora Court of Appeal, 16/10/2025, case no. 691/21.9T8TMR.E1, Reporting Judge Maria João Sousa e Faro, annotated on the IPPC Blog on 24/07/2026.
Bank account frozen by court order: suing the bank is not the answer
The Évora Court of Appeal upheld the outright dismissal of an injunction in which the holder of an account frozen in criminal proceedings demanded that the bank release and transfer the funds. In a bank deposit, ownership of the money passes to the bank, which must return the equivalent — but its duties to return funds and execute payment orders are conditioned by court decisions affecting the account (attachments, freezing orders, seizures). While the account is blocked by court order, the client cannot demand restitution from the bank: the remedy is to challenge the blocking decision in the proper proceedings. Relevant for companies and individuals facing seizures and freezes of bank balances. Ref.: Évora Court of Appeal, 16/10/2025, case no. 2236/25.2T8FAR.E1, Reporting Judge Filipe Aveiro Marques, annotated on the IPPC Blog on 27/07/2026.
Foreign judgments against the Portuguese State can be enforced here: Supreme Court sets immunity aside
The Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the review of a Brazilian judgment ordering the Portuguese State to pay employment credits to a former employee of the Consulate-General in São Paulo. The Supreme Court dismissed every objection: the judicial courts have jurisdiction over the review, the State is a proper defendant and, since acts of private management were at stake — an employment relationship with an individual — jurisdictional immunity does not apply; nor does applying foreign labour law breach international public policy (articles 978 et seq. of the Civil Procedure Code). The line between public and private management is the decisive test. Of interest to emigrants and to anyone contracting with Portuguese public entities abroad. Ref.: Supreme Court of Justice, 23/10/2025, case no. 3795/24.2YRLSB.S1, Reporting Judge Catarina Serra, annotated on the IPPC Blog on 29/07/2026.
Download the full edition as a PDF (bilingual, letterhead)
This newsletter is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific case, please contact us.