Post a Comment Print Share on Facebook

reads.

Kaisa Liskin dispute, and the rough details: a Witness got sleep problems, family life was disturbed - Liski scored more than 100 000 lawyers bill
Celebrity real estate broker Kaisa Liski was sentenced to massive compensation employment contracts act violations. The Ex-employer's requirements go most often through the Hyvinkää district court.New country, Viva received in the district court through a quantitative 72% Kaisa liskii of targeted compensation requirements.The district court justified the sentence Liskin action against their employer.Right lower some Liskille streams of lawyer expenses. The judgment does not have the force of law.Archive video: Kaisa Liski opposed to the former employer for damages.

real estate in the queen's well-known Kaisa Liski have to compensate the former employer of the new country Vivalle heavy sum of the employment contracts act violations.

the District court sentenced Liskin total of more than 666 000 euros compensation. The largest individual amounts were fair 121 000 eur contract fines. The employer's legal costs will be reimbursed for 40 000 euros.

the Judgment does not have the force of law.

the Dispute escalated when Liski broke his contract in march 2016 and announced that the compliance notice. Justification as he said that the employer had failed to comply with the employment contracts act obligations. The district court's view, the employer's alleged discrimination or bullying will not be display. One of the witnesses told me that Liskillä had been the firm's highest salary and every year a new car.

Liski violated the non-compete agreement when you set up your own, competing company after departure. The district court's view, it was obvious that Kaisa Liski DHW Ltd competed in the new land Kenyatta. The problem was not that, was it Caleb ”obvious harm”, as the law says.

the District court examined case law and a concrete risk that the damage occurred was enough to agreement violations. Liski took more than 40 customer information that is business confidential. This also led to a separate contractual penalties and was enough to justify a competition ban.

the Court also rejected some of the requirements. Viva used the incident began sorting out a private detective, but the bill didn't go through. One of the company's witnesses, in turn, requires a 2 000 witness fees, as he claimed to have suffered sleep disruption and family life is disturbed. The company adopted the 1 000 € fees, and legal seen a raise is necessary.

Kaisa Liski was sentenced to more than 650 000 euros compensation. ATTE KAJOVAPainavia lawyer bills

It was litigation, so the parties also submitted legal costs of the losing party to pay. Liskin lawyer bill rose significantly higher than Kenyatta. The case was Liskin managed on behalf of the three lawyers, and the original count was 101 000. The company would have agreed to 50 000 euros in compensation, if you had lost a case. The decline was twice as large as Official.

Liski prepared the case to the disappearance of the secondary so that the requested district court to reduce compensation costs. Code of judicial procedure states that if the case is so unclear that the losing has been justified in the trial, the parties may be ordered to pay the costs themselves.

the Law according to Liskin thing was not mentioned the way unclear, but focused mainly on the screen weigh. Instead, Liskin amount of compensation is reduced because the Kenyatta requirements were adopted just less than three quarters, and the trial was about a large amount of work and money.

Kenyatta's lawyer count was just under 57 000 eur, which the lower court decision 40 000.

– When you look at Liskin procedure fact as a whole, it can be stated that it is overall, be very determined and employer interests, the missing, the right to write.

Avatar
Your Name
Post a Comment
Characters Left:
Your comment has been forwarded to the administrator for approval.×
Warning! Will constitute a criminal offense, illegal, threatening, offensive, insulting and swearing, derogatory, defamatory, vulgar, pornographic, indecent, personality rights, damaging or similar nature in the nature of all kinds of financial content, legal, criminal and administrative responsibility for the content of the sender member / members are belong.