Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 1797/1997 AI generated

Supreme Court allows appeal against High Court's failure to examine secondary claim after procedural error.

Case Number KKO 1797/1997
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal against the High Court's decision to leave the secondary claim unexamined. The appellant had initially sued on primary grounds, which were accepted, but the High Court rejected the secondary grounds and failed to consider them when the appellant later relied on them in their defense. The court ruled that the High Court's procedural error necessitated remanding the case for a proper examination of the secondary claim.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Korkein oikeus 1797/1997: Korkeimmassa oikeudessa 1797/1997: Kun korkein oikeus hylkää valituksen, koska alakohtainen oikeus on tehnyt virheen menettelyssä, jolloin se jätti toissijaisen kanteen tutkimatta, vaikka asianosainen oli vedonnut siihen vastineessa, asia palautetaan uudelle käsittelemiselle.

Keywords

AI generated
procedural error secondary claim remand for retrial failure to examine appellate procedure
AI generated
kko-precedent_1996_134
Supreme Court remands case for oral hearing due to conflicting testimonies and defendant's right to defense.
kko-precedent_2013_14
Supreme Court dismisses appeal when High Court wrongly denies retrial while altering lower court's reasoning.
kko-precedent_2003_108
Supreme Court held defendant liable for costs despite acquittal due to post-trial lighter law application.
kko-other_2023_1167
Supreme Court allows partial costs award where lower court failed to address initial trial expenses.
kko-other_2019_638
Supreme Court dismisses appeal where lower court wrongly denied further proceedings permission due to factual 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

A oli käräjäoikeudessa ajanut kannettaan B:tä vastaan vaihtoehtoisilla perusteilla. Käräjäoikeus oli hyväksynyt kanteen ensisijaisella perusteella ajettuna, mutta hylännyt sen toissijaisella perusteella ajettuna. B:n valitettua hovioikeuteen A oli hovioikeudelle antamassaan vastineessa vedonnut toissijaiseen kanneperusteeseen. Hovioikeus jätti tämän vastineessa esitetyn vaatimuksen tutkimatta. Hovioikeuden virheellisen menettelyn vuoksi asia palautettiin hovioikeuteen uudelleen käsiteltäväksi.

Kysymys myös huomioon otettavasta oikeudenkäyntiaineistosta.