Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Vaasan HO 13.10.1983 803/82 AI generated

Court of Appeal partially allowed claim for pain and damage compensation after single-instance ruling.

Case Number Vaasan HO 13.10.1983 803/82
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Court of Appeal in Vaasa partially allowed a claim for pain and damage compensation after the lower court ruled in a single instance due to the respondent's absence. The respondent had requested a retrial in the original court, which the appellate court found justified because the initial compensation amount was likely insufficient. Consequently, the court increased the award to a level where the claim would no longer be considered groundless.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Lainvoimainen tuomio yksipuolisella tuomiolla; korvauksen korottaminen: Kun alioikeus on ratkaissut asian yksipuolisella tuomiolla vastaajan puuttumisen vuoksi ja korvaus on ilmeisesti perusteeton, hovioikeus voi korottaa korvausta asianmukaiseen tasoon.

Keywords

AI generated
pain and damage compensation single instance ruling respondent absence retrial request partial allowance appellate review insufficient compensation

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Law on Civil Procedure Act of 14.1.1972

Cited Case Law

AI generated
Vaasan hovioikeuden kortti D:S1982/555A
AI generated
kko-other_2006_720
Supreme Court dismissed client's claim for increased damages due to changed trial circumstances without prior appeal.
kko-precedent_2011_55
Supreme Court allows appeal to complete criminal trial judgment regarding unaddressed civil costs claim.
kko-other_2003_555
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when lower court relies on facts not raised in the permitted settlement case.
kko-other_2022_365
Supreme Court dismisses appeal regarding legal costs for granting further stay of execution permission.
kko-precedent_2003_108
Supreme Court held defendant liable for costs despite acquittal due to post-trial lighter law application.

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

Alioikeus oli kipu- ja särkykorvausta koskevassa jutussa, vastaajan jäätyä saapumatta jutun ensikäsittelyyn, ratkaissut jutun yksipuolisella tuomiolla ja hyväksynyt kanteen osittain.

Hovioikeus on korottanut korvausta siihen määrään saakka, kun vaatimusta ei ollut pidettävä ilmeisesti perusteettomana, ja osoittanut vastaajan hakemaan takaisinsaantia asian ratkaisseessa alioikeudessa.

Ks. Halila: Oikeudenkäyntimenettelyn 14.1.1972 annetulla

lailla toteutetut osittaisuudistukset, LM 1972 s. 484 ss.

Vrt. VaaHO:n kortti D:S1982/555A, A:22.9.1983

Lainvoimainen