Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Itä-Suomen HO 02.07.1981 TU-115/81 AI generated

Appeal dismissed for late service of counterclaim notice violating statutory time limits.

Case Number Itä-Suomen HO 02.07.1981 TU-115/81
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the appeal against a first-instance judgment that voided a property sale and ordered damages. The appellant filed a counterclaim after the statutory deadline for service expired, while the defendants were served within the required period. The court ruled that the procedural defect rendered the counterclaim inadmissible, upholding the original judgment's validity.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lainvoimainen tuomio; The court held that a counterclaim filed after the expiration of the statutory service period is inadmissible, and the first-instance judgment remains valid despite the procedural defect.

Keywords

AI generated
counterclaim service deadline procedural inadmissibility statutory time limits appeal dismissal property sale voiding

Cited Legislation

AI generated
OK 12 luvun 13 § 1 mom.

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:1979-II-1
Vrt. myös KKO:1979-II-1.
AI generated
appeal_1980_kouvola__573
Court dismisses tenant's late objection to landlord's unilateral rent recovery order due to procedural delay.
kko-precedent_2013_102
Supreme Court allows partial inheritance division claim against one co-owner based on their admission only.
kko-precedent_1997_175
Supreme Court allows appeal against default judgment by ruling judge not biased in retrial.
kko-precedent_1987_63
Supreme Court dismisses agent's claim for breach of mandate due to statute of limitations under Commercial Code Section 18.9.
kko-precedent_2010_84
Supreme Court allows damages claim against deregistered company where shareholder unanimously appoints representative for proceedings.

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

A:ta vastaan ajetussa jutussa oli yksipuolisella tuomiolla B:n, C:n ja D:n kanteesta julistettu näiden yhteisesti A:lle myymien eräiden asunto-osakeyhtiön osakkeiden kauppa puretuksi sekä velvoitettu suorittamaan B:lle, C:lle ja D:lle yhteisesti vahingonkorvausta. A pani vireille takaisinsaantikanteen haasteella, joka annettiin tiedoksi B:lle ja C:lle OK 12 luvun 13 §:n 1 mom:n mukaisessa, takaisinsaantiosoituksessa ilmoitetussa määräajassa mutta D:lle vasta tuon määräajan päätyttyä.

Takaisinsaantikanne tutkittiin.

Vrt. myös KKO:1979-II-1.

Tauno Tirkkonen: Suomen siviiliprosessioikeus I, 1973, ss. 414-416, 477, 479, 485, II, 1977, s. 52-56, 442

Aarne Rekola: Saamisoikeuden vanhentuminen I, 1938, s. 52

Jouko Halila: Oikeudenkäyntimenettelyn 14.1.1972 annetulla

lailla toteutetut osittaisuudistukset, LM 1972, ss. 478-479

Lainvoimainen