Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
BS-302/2008-HJR AI generated

Costs claim against third party dismissed as separate appeal required under procedural law.

Case Number BS-302/2008-HJR
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Denmark (DK)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal regarding costs imposed on a third party, Unique Broadband Systems Inc. The appellant argued the costs order should be reviewed, but the Court held that such appeals must be filed separately against the specific third party. Consequently, the Court ruled that a separate process permission was unnecessary because the main case was already under appeal.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Retsplejelovens § 373, stk. 1, nr. 2 og 3; Retsplejelovens § 368, stk. 5: An appeal against costs imposed on a third party must be filed separately, and a separate process permission is not required when the main case is already under appeal.

Keywords

AI generated
costs allocation third party liability separate appeal procedure process permission requirement procedural standing

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Retsplejelovens § 373, stk. 1, nr. 2 og 3
retsplejelovens § 374, da ankestævningen i forhold til denne ikke opfylder kravene i retsplejelovens § 373, stk. 1, nr. 2 og 3.
Retsplejelovens § 368, stk. 5
sagsomkostninger skal iværksættes særskilt overfor Unique Broadband Systems Inc., og at Procesbevillingsnævnets tilladelse hertil i medfør af retsplejelovens § 368, stk. 5, i et tilfælde som det foreliggende, hvor hovedsagen er anket, ikke er fornøden.
AI generated
BS-29769/2019-SVE
Costs in a discretionary case dismissed because the High Court's ruling on the underlying claim is not yet final.
FS-12818/2020-ODE
Court dismisses claim for costs in evidence security case due to lack of procedural standing.
BS-51109/2020-KBH
Court dismisses claim for legal fee reimbursement due to extraordinary pandemic delays not attributable to the court.
BS-42885/2021-OLR
Court of Appeal upholds lower court's decision on litigation costs following High Court ruling.
BS-1861/2016-VLR
Costs appeal dismissed; lower court's decision upheld as case was necessary and justified.

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

Højesterets beslutning vedrørende spørgsmålet om sagsomkostninger i relation til biintervenient

[DOKUMENT] Retsbog (1 sider) UDSKRIFT AF HØJESTERETS ANKE- OG KÆREMÅLSUDVALGS RETSBOG

Retsmøde den 3. september 2008 i

Sag 302/2008

Ingeniørforeningen i Danmark som mandatar for Appellant, tidligere Sagsøger (advokat Finn Lænkholm) mod Appelindstævnte, tidligere Sagsøgte (advokat Henning Hansen)

Der fremlagdes ankestævning modtaget 21. august 2008.

Det fremgår heraf, at appellanten går ud fra, at Højesteret under ankesagen tager stilling til spørgsmålet om sagsomkostninger i relation til Unique Broadband Systems Inc.

Efter votering besluttede ankeudvalget (Poul Søgaard, Jytte Scharling og Niels Grubbe), at sagen ikke kan fremmes overfor Unique Broadband Systems Inc., jf. retsplejelovens § 374, da ankestævningen i forhold til denne ikke opfylder kravene i retsplejelovens § 373, stk. 1, nr. 2 og 3.

Ankeudvalget bemærkede, at anke af Østre Landsrets afgørelse om at tillægge Unique Broadband Systems Inc. sagsomkostninger skal iværksættes særskilt overfor Unique Broadband Systems Inc., og at Procesbevillingsnævnets tilladelse hertil i medfør af retsplejelovens § 368, stk. 5, i et tilfælde som det foreliggende, hvor hovedsagen er anket, ikke er fornøden.

/ /