Jugement Kantonsgericht (VD - HC/2015/29)

Canton:	VD
Case number:	HC/2015/29

Instance:	Kantonsgericht
Department:	Chambre des recours civile

Kantonsgericht Entscheid HC/2015/29 vom 05.02.2015 (VD)

Date:	05.02.2015
Force of law:	-

Summary:	J.________, a resident of Puidoux, filed an appeal against the compensation of his public defender Me L.________, Vevey, as determined by the President of the Court of Rent. The Cantonal Court rejected the appeal. It found that the compensation set was reasonable. The compensation was CHF 5000.- for the first 20 hours and CHF 1000.- for every additional hour. The Cantonal Court took into account the difficulty of the case and the fact that the public defender had done part of the work as part of his law firm's work. More detailed summary: J.________ filed a lawsuit against his landlord on April 24, 2014. The landlord requested to dismiss the lawsuit and order J.________ to pay the costs of the proceedings. The rental court dismissed the action and ordered J.________ to pay the costs of the proceedings in the amount of CHF 10000.-. J.________ was not able to pay his own lawyer. He was therefore represented by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Vaud with a public defender, Me L.________, from the law firm L.________ & Associés in Vevey. The president of the Mietgericht set the compensation for Me L.________ to CHF 5000.- for the first 20 hours and CHF 1000.- fixed for every additional hour. J._______ filed an appeal against this decision with the Cantonal Court. He found the compensation to be too high. The Cantonal Court rejected the appeal. It found that the compensation set was reasonable. The compensation took into account the difficulty of the case and the fact that the public defender had done part of the work as part of his firm's work. J.________ has not filed an appeal against the verdict of the Cantonal Court.
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.