Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 14.04.1983 40/83 AI generated

Court dismisses employee's wage claim and employer's damage claim due to procedural bar and lack of evidence.

Case Number Vaasan HO 14.04.1983 40/83
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the employee's claim for unpaid wages and the employer's counterclaim for damages arising from the same employment relationship. The employee argued for outstanding salary, while the employer contended that the employee had already received full compensation. The court ruled that the claims were procedurally barred and unsupported by sufficient evidence, resulting in the dismissal of both parties' requests.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 33 of the Code of Judicial Procedure; Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Procedure: The court may dismiss a claim if it is procedurally barred or lacks sufficient evidentiary support, regardless of the opposing party's arguments.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural bar unpaid wages employment contract damages claim evidentiary support
AI generated
kko-precedent_1999_31
Supreme Court allows late claim for additional damages after prior judgment on wrongful termination.
ECLI:FI:KKO:2019:42
Supreme Court allows employer to recover legal costs after employee pays damages then withdraws claim.
labour_2013_173
Labour Court dismissed union's appeal against employer's refusal to grant leave for union activities.
kko-other_2019_1284
Supreme Court allows employee's claim against employer for legal costs due to procedural uncertainty.
labour_1983_12
Labor court fines union branches and union for violating work peace and collective strike rules.

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

Työntekijä A:n kanne työnantajaansa B:tä vastaan työsuhteen päättyessä maksamatta jääneestä palkasta ynnä muuta sekä B:n puolestaan A:ta vastaan ajama, samasta työsuhteesta johtuva vahingonkorvauskanne käsiteltiin yhdessä.

Koska asianosaiset puolin ja toisin pääasiallisesti voittivat kanteensa ja heidän kulunsa olivat arvioitavissa samansuuruisiksi, kulut kuitattiin.

Ks. Liljenfeldt, Raija: Oikeudenkäyntikuluista riitajutuissa, s. 69 ss. Hels:n yliopiston prosessioikeuden

laitoksen julkaisusarja n:o 4/1982

KKO:n ratkaisu:

Päätös n:o 3584/21.9.1983: A:lle ei myönnetty valituslupaa.