Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
BS-11/2011-ALB ECLI:DK:ALB:2022:BS0000001658 AI generated

Court dismisses request for expert judges in civil case due to lack of special circumstances requiring expert knowledge.

Case Number BS-11/2011-ALB
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Denmark (DK)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court rejected the plaintiff's request to have the case heard by expert judges under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff argued for expert judges, while the defendant protested this request, but no parties appeared in person. The court determined that no special circumstances existed necessitating expert judicial knowledge for the liability assessment regarding investment advice.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 20, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure; The court may not substitute expert judges unless special circumstances exist requiring their specific professional knowledge.

Keywords

AI generated
expert judges Code of Civil Procedure special circumstances professional knowledge liability assessment investment advice substitution of judges

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 20, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure
retsplejelovens § 20, stk.
AI generated
BS-1598/2013-VLR
Court dismisses appeal to replace trial judges with expert members due to lack of relevance.
BS-1702/2009-HJO
Civil court dismissed case on expert judges' participation due to lack of statutory basis in Danish law.
BS-39983/2018-VLR
Landlord's request for expert inspection and valuation allowed after first instance rejection.
BS-122/2011-HIL
Court rejects plaintiff's request for expert members during trial due to lack of independent expert evidence.
BS-973/2016-VLR
Appeal dismissed; expert fee estimate deemed reasonable despite parties' agreement on lower cost expert.

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

Begæring om, at retten tiltrædes af sagkyndige dommere, jf. retsplejelovens § 20, stk. 1, tages ikke til følge

[DOKUMENT] Afgørelse (2 sider) RETTEN I AALBORG

Udskrift af retshogen

Den 13. juni 2013 kl. 09:00 blev retten sat på dommerens kontor af Dommer .

Der blev foretaget i ikke offentligt retsmøde sagnr.BS 1-11/201

Sagsøger 1 Adresse 1 Område By 1 og Sagsøger 1 ApS Adresse 1 , Område By 1

mod

Spar Nord Bank AIS Aars Afdeling Himmerlandsgade 70 9600 Aars

Ingen indkaldt eller mødt.

Der blev fremlagt

• sagsogers mail af 30. maj 2013, hvor der anmodes om, at retten tiltrædes al’ sagkyndige dommere. jf. retsplejelovens § 20, stk. 1.

• sagsogtes brev af 10. juni 2013 med protest mod, at retten tiltrædes af sagkyndige dommere.

Der afsagdes sålvdende

Kendelse

Efter det oplyste må sagens hovedtema antages at vedrøre en bedømmelse af, hvorvidt sagsøgte har handlet ansvarspådragende i forbindelse med råd givning i forbindelse med investeringer. Når henses til, at sagen har været forelagt Finansrådet. der har afgivet responsum, finder retten ikke, at der gør sig sådanne særlig forhold gældende, at sagkyndige medlemmers fagkund skab skønnes at være af betydning for sagen.

Thi bestemmes:

Den fremsatte begæring om. at retten tiltrædes al’ sagkyndige dommere.jf.

5TD06 4S SU S1U I 11 Ifl SIS’O-RJQ Side 2/2

retsplejelovens § 20, stk. I, tages ikke til følge.

Sagen udsat.

Retten hævet.

Dommer Tiltalte 2

5TD061481 SO STOl K9TTt2 LOl MGT mGT