Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 11.10.1968 AI generated

Appeal court remands case for inquiry into legal standing and grounds of claim under Civil Procedure Code.

Case Number Vaasan HO 11.10.1968
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The lower court dismissed the petition for annulment of a marriage settlement because the petitioner failed to disclose the grounds for their claim. The Court of Appeal found that the lower court incorrectly failed to investigate whether the petitioner had a legal interest in the proceedings. Consequently, the appeal court ordered the case to be returned to the lower court for a proper inquiry into these issues.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Kiväärin 14 luvun 1 §:n 1 momentin mukaisesti: When a lower court fails to ascertain whether a party has a legal interest in the proceedings or the specific grounds of their claim, it must exercise its power of inquiry rather than dismiss the case.

Keywords

AI generated
legal standing inquiry marriage settlement annulment civil procedure code lower court error case remand for inquiry

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Kiväärin 14 luvun 1 §:n 1 momentti

Cited Case Law

AI generated
D:VD1962/96, A:7.9.1962
Samoin VaaHO:n päätös D:VD1962/96, A:7.9.1962
AI generated
appeal_1980_turku__2524
Court of Appeal grants free legal aid and counsel to a divorce plaintiff whose appeal was previously dismissed.
kko-precedent_1998_95
Supreme Court reverses High Court for failing to allow appealant access to trial documents before ruling.
kko-precedent_1989_105
Supreme Court allows appeal when lower court dismisses claim based on fact defendant did not argue. Appeal allowed because defendant did not argue the specific fact used to dismiss the claim.
appeal_1967_vaasa__x297
Court dismisses alternative divorce ground when primary ground is already rejected and not examined.
kko-other_2005_2975
Supreme Court held lower court must transfer main proceedings to appeal on indictment error.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

X:n vaatiessa kihlakunnanoikeudessa A:n ja edesmenneen B:n välisen avioehtosopimuksen julistamista mitättömäksi kihlakunnanoikeus oli päätöksellään, katsoen, ettei X ollut haastehakemuksessaan ilmoittanut niitä seikkoja, joihin hän perusti vaatimuksensa, jättänyt kanteen tutkimatta.

Hovioikeus, joka tosin havaitsi, ettei jutussa käynyt selville, oliko X:llä oikeudellinen tarve kanteensa ajamiseen, katsoi, että kihlakunnanoikeuden puheenjohtajan olisi tullut oikeudenkäymiskaaren 14 luvun 1 §:n 1 momentin mukaisesti kyselyoikeuttaan käyttämällä selvittää mainittu kysymys, ja kun haastehakemuksessa oli ilmoitettu ne seikat, joihin X perusti vaatimuksensa, eikä kihlakunnanoikeuden näin ollen olisi tullut jättää kannetta tutkimatta, palautti jutun kihlakunnanoikeuteen.

Samoin VaaHO:n päätös D:VD1962/96, A:7.9.1962

Lainvoimainen