Legislator Rechtsprechung & Gesetzgebung
DE FR IT EN
In Legislator analysieren
KKO 827/2005 KI-generiert

Supreme Court dismisses negligence claim against lawyer for untimely filing and procedural errors.

Geschäftsnummer KKO 827/2005
Gericht / Behörde
Rechtsordnung Finnland (FI)
Entscheiddatum
Ausgang Abgewiesen (Dismissed)
Originalquelle öffnen Maschinenlesbares Markdown (.md)

Legislator-Zusammenfassung

KI-generiert

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages against a lawyer alleging negligence in handling a case file. The plaintiff argued the lawyer's procedural errors caused financial loss, while the defense maintained the actions were within professional standards. The court ruled that the claim was inadmissible due to the failure to file the lawsuit within the statutory limitation period.

Legislator-Regeste

KI-generiert

Korkein oikeus 10.4.2005 827/2005: Vahingonkorvausvaatimus asianajajaa vastaan on hylätty, jos se on nostettu lainkäymisajan jälkeen; asianajajan menettelyvirhe ei ole vahingonkorvausvastuun peruste, jos se ei ole aiheuttanut vahinkoa.

Schlagwörter

KI-generiert
negligence claim statute of limitations lawyer liability procedural error inadmissible claim damages assessment professional duty Grundbedürfnisse

Zitierte Gesetzesbestimmungen

KI-generiert
Korkein oikeus 10.4.2005 827/2005
KI-generiert
kko-other_2016_2355
Supreme Court dismisses claim for damages from illegal competition restrictions due to statute of limitations expiration.
appeal_1984_helsinki__676
Statutory limitation period for transport contract claims calculated under general rules, not special provisions.
kko-precedent_1999_31
Supreme Court allows late claim for additional damages after prior judgment on wrongful termination.
kko-precedent_1995_149
Supreme Court dismisses claim for damages against lawyer for breach of instructions due to late filing after client's discovery of error.
labour_2014_5
Labour Court dismissed union's appeal against employer's refusal to grant collective bargaining rights to a specific business name.

Fragen Sie sich, wie dieser Entscheid auf Ihren Fall anwendbar ist?

Prüfen Sie diesen Entscheid zusammen mit Bundesrecht, kantonalen Erlassen, Kommentaren und Folgeentscheiden in Legislator AI.

Fall in Legislator öffnen →

Volltext

A vaati kanteella varatuomari B:ltä vahingonkorvausta sillä perusteella, että B oli asianajotoimeksiantoa täyttäessään huolimattomalla menettelyllään aiheuttanut A:lle vahinkoa. Kysymys vahingonkorvauksen tuomitsemisen perusteesta.

Kysymys myös siitä, oliko kanne nostettu ajoissa.