Search terms: Litigation, Finland
The Supreme Court recently found that a district court before which a case regarding the redemption of shares first became pending was also competent to settle the question of whether an arbitral award was to be set aside. The court reasoned that requiring such questions to be addressed elsewhere would be contrary to the purpose of Chapter 18, Section 10 of the Limited Liability Companies Act.
In light of a recent case before the Supreme Court, for tactical reasons parties would be well advised to consider making a settlement offer either before a matter reaches the courts or even during court proceedings. This may lead the courts to elect not to obligate the party which made the settlement offer to pay the legal fees of the other party, regardless of the outcome of the case.
The Supreme Court has supported the Finnish Procedural Code by ruling in a recent case that counsel will be held liable for the costs of the other side only in exceptional circumstances. It ruled that everyone should have the right to the same level of legal protection, including the right to appeal, regardless of financial status.
A number of changes to the appeals system and procedure in the Finnish courts of appeal will soon enter into force. The new system is geared towards reducing the amount of work in the courts of appeal and shortening appeal times. The changes introduce a screening procedure, under which only appeals that are likely to be successful will be subject to the full appeal procedure.
The Code of Civil Procedure has been amended to increase its flexibility and expedite judicial procedure. A preparatory hearing or main hearing may now be dispensed with, depending on the circumstances of the case. In addition, the court is now required to provide the parties with information regarding the progress of the proceedings and issue a summary of the case.
The Finnish Supreme Court recently held that a seizure of documents containing confidential client information regarding an attorney's assignment was contrary to law. The documents contained no information pertaining to the criminal investigation concerning the attorney, and should have been returned or destroyed once this was realized.