Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
KKO 827/2005 Generato dall'IA

Supreme Court dismisses negligence claim against lawyer for untimely filing and procedural errors.

Numero d'incarto KKO 827/2005
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Finlandia (FI)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Respinto (Dismissed)
Apri la fonte ufficiale Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages against a lawyer alleging negligence in handling a case file. The plaintiff argued the lawyer's procedural errors caused financial loss, while the defense maintained the actions were within professional standards. The court ruled that the claim was inadmissible due to the failure to file the lawsuit within the statutory limitation period.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

Korkein oikeus 10.4.2005 827/2005: Vahingonkorvausvaatimus asianajajaa vastaan on hylätty, jos se on nostettu lainkäymisajan jälkeen; asianajajan menettelyvirhe ei ole vahingonkorvausvastuun peruste, jos se ei ole aiheuttanut vahinkoa.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
negligence claim statute of limitations lawyer liability procedural error inadmissible claim damages assessment professional duty bisogni fondamentali

Disposizioni normative citate

Generato dall'IA
Korkein oikeus 10.4.2005 827/2005
Generato dall'IA
kko-other_2016_2355
Supreme Court dismisses claim for damages from illegal competition restrictions due to statute of limitations expiration.
appeal_1984_helsinki__676
Statutory limitation period for transport contract claims calculated under general rules, not special provisions.
kko-precedent_1999_31
Supreme Court allows late claim for additional damages after prior judgment on wrongful termination.
kko-precedent_1995_149
Supreme Court dismisses claim for damages against lawyer for breach of instructions due to late filing after client's discovery of error.
labour_2014_5
Labour Court dismissed union's appeal against employer's refusal to grant collective bargaining rights to a specific business name.

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

A vaati kanteella varatuomari B:ltä vahingonkorvausta sillä perusteella, että B oli asianajotoimeksiantoa täyttäessään huolimattomalla menettelyllään aiheuttanut A:lle vahinkoa. Kysymys vahingonkorvauksen tuomitsemisen perusteesta.

Kysymys myös siitä, oliko kanne nostettu ajoissa.