The commented judgment concerns the method of assessing the premise of ineffectiveness of enforcement against a limited liability company, which is crucial for accepting subsidiary liability of management board members. The Supreme Court found that the property items indicated by the defendant in the context of potential enforcement were of a specific nature, and the circle of their potential purchasers was very narrow – it concerned a patent and a prototype, research-type device intended to materialize it, the use of which did not go beyond the laboratory phase. Based on the above, it was found that enforcement from this component of the debtor’s assets is pointless. The author therefore analyses what circumstances may determine the pointlessness of continuing enforcement from specific property components and in what situations it is justified to believe that despite the existence of some property on the debtor’s side, enforcement from this property will be ineffective.