Jugement Kantonsgericht (VD - HC/2015/19)

Canton:	VD
Case number:	HC/2015/19

Instance:	Kantonsgericht
Department:	Chambre des recours civile

Kantonsgericht Entscheid HC/2015/19 vom 05.02.2015 (VD)

Date:	05.02.2015
Force of law:	-

Summary:	H.________, a tenant in Puidoux, filed an appeal against a decision of the tenancy court, which determined the compensation of his public defender. The rental court had set the compensation at CHF 3000. H.________ argued that the compensation was too high, since he could have led the process himself. The Cantonal Court upheld H.________ and reduced the compensation to CHF 2000. The Cantonal Court based its decision on the fact that H.________, although he had the necessary knowledge and skills to conduct the trial himself, had nevertheless engaged a public defender. More detailed summary H.________, a tenant in Puidoux, filed a lawsuit against his landlord for eviction. The rental court dismissed the action and ordered H.________ to pay legal costs in the amount of CHF 3000. H.________ was represented by a public defender who demanded compensation of CHF 3000 for his activities. H.________ was of the opinion that the compensation was too high, since he could have led the process himself. The rental court rejected the objection of H.________. H.________ then went to the Cantonal Court. The Cantonal Court upheld H.________ and reduced the compensation for the public defender to CHF 2000. The Cantonal Court based its decision on the fact that H.________, although he had the necessary knowledge and skills to conduct the trial himself, had nevertheless engaged a public defender. The Cantonal Court further stated that the compensation for a public defender is usually CHF 2000. Since H.________ had the necessary knowledge and skills to conduct the process himself, the originally set compensation of CHF 3000 was too high.
Rule of Law:	Art. 100 LTF;Art. 110 CPC;Art. 119 CPC;Art. 122 CPC;Art. 123 CPC;Art. 221 CPC;Art. 311 CPC;Art. 319 CPC;Art. 321 CPC;Art. 64 LTF;Art. 74 LTF;Art. 95 CPC;Art. 96 CPC;Art. 97 LTF;
BGE reference::	-
Comment:	-

Please note that there is no claim to topicality/accuracy/format and/or completeness and that therefore any guarantee is excluded. Original decisions may be ordered or made on the basis of the competent court.

Click here to return to the page search engine.