Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
BS-2910/2008-ARH ECLI:DK:ARH:2022:BS0000000214 AI generated

Court dismisses expert witness request in construction contract dispute due to lack of necessity.

Case Number BS-2910/2008-ARH
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Denmark (DK)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court in Aarhus dismissed the plaintiff's request for expert witnesses during the main hearing in a construction contract dispute. The plaintiff alleged defects, delays, and unauthorized extra work but failed to submit the expert request in the initial summons or the February 2009 preparatory hearing. The court determined the case did not require specialized knowledge under Section 20, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure, thus ruling the request inadmissible.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Section 20, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure; Expert witnesses are not required for the main hearing if the case does not involve matters of specialized knowledge.

Keywords

AI generated
expert witness request civil procedure law construction contract dispute specialized knowledge requirement main hearing procedure preliminary hearing timing inadmissible evidence

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Section 20, Paragraph 1 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
BS-4405/2022-BOR
Contractor awarded damages for delay and defects; claimant dismissed counterclaims for liquidated damages and rent loss.
BS-808/2017-NYK
Court rejects defendant's motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiff to pursue full claim for damages and repair costs.
BS-935/2008-HRS
Court orders land return for breach of construction start deadline in commercial land sale contract.
BS-1171/2010-NYK
Danish court dismisses claim due to plaintiff's failure to meet comment deadline on defendant's answer.
BS-8743/2020-OLR
Appeal dismissed because lawyer without court representation filed the appeal filing electronically.

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

Sag om, hvorvidt retten skulle tiltrædes af sagkyndige under hovedforhandlingen

[DOKUMENT] Afgørelse (2 sider) Retten i Århus

Udskrift af retsbogen

Den 4. september 2009 kl. 11:00 blev Retten i Århus. Forberedelsesafdelin gen, sat af Dommer .

Der blev foretaget i ikke offentligt retsmøde sag nr. BS II-2910’2008:

Loten Murerog Entreprenør AiS Anesovej 41 8240 Risskov mod Part A (Sagsøgte)

Adresse 1 By og Part B (Sagsøgte)

Adresse 1 By

Ingen var indkaldt eller modt.

Der blev fremlagt korrespondance fra parterne om sagkyndig medvirken.

Der er fastsat tid til hovedforhandling den 30. marts 2010.

Skonsmand er udmeldt den 5. august 2009.

Der afsagdes

kendelse

Sagen drejer sig om renovering afen villaejendom i henhold til en mellem parterne indgået entrepriseahale. Sagsogtes fdfindelsespåstand bygger på, at der er mangler ved det udførte arbejde. at der er indtrådt forsinkelse, og at der er faktureret ikke aftalte ekstraarbejder.

Anmodningen om sagkyndig medvirken er ikke fremsat i stævningen eller i det forberedende retsmøde, der blev afholdt i februar 2009.

Sagen findes ikke at have en sådan karakter. at fagkundskab skønnes at være afbetvdning for sagen. jE retsplejelovens 20, stk. 1, hvorfor bestemmes

Retten skal ikke tihrædes af sagkyndige under hovedforhandlingen.

Side 2/2

Retten hævet.

Dommer

Anonymiseret