is after probably the overwhelming majority of case law, it constitutes a major reason for the purpose of § 227 I ZPO if the attorney is prevented from holiday on the perception of the scheduled date . Nothing else can apply to the prevention of a training event. The transfer can are generally not refused on the grounds that one of the Sozii prevented counsel could take on the representation. Represented party may be expected regularly to be represented in term of the one lawyer who has taken over the clerical duties. The judge had rejected a postponement of the more need to consider, as it was the plaintiffs here, who had requested a transfer, the request was made immediately after receipt of the disposal and the transfer with little effort would have been possible.
A deviating "established practice" of the Chamber of the challenged judge can regularly are not accepted. The refusal of the postponement by the bias application and thereby challenged the subsequent appeal process has led to a charge which does not stand a process-economic perspective. In addition, just this refusal has caused a delay of the process, it has sought to avoid them the challenged judge.
Whether a postponement may be in the presence of other exceptional circumstances of the case but denied as represented by the challenged judge reasons, need not be decided here. The judge erred in refusing the transfer of an appointment may be a reason for refusal II § 42 ZPO, especially not an appeal against a refusal under § 227 IV ZPO is given.
your law firm Dr. Palm
0 comments:
Post a Comment