Additional costs could not be quantified in separate proceedings
Editorial summary
After the documents case ended, the claimant separately sought further costs. The circuit court set aside the new order and left the application unexamined: the costs amount should have been challenged in the original termination order.
Narva linn, Suur tn 5 korteriühistu · 80121568
Participants and roles
- Claimant and appellant — XX
- Defendant — Narva linn, Suur tn 5 korteriühistu
The dispute and the court’s decision
In proceedings against KÜ Suur Viis Narva, now Narva linn, Suur tn 5 korteriühistu, the association provided XX with the requested documents. The court terminated proceedings and, in the same order of 19 July 2012, allocated costs and quantified them. The claimant later made a separate application for further costs, which the county court granted in part.
The circuit court found that separate procedure inadmissible. When terminating proceedings, the court should have allowed time for a costs list but had not done so. The remedy was to appeal the termination order itself, not to submit a new application after it became final. The earlier order had not been appealed.
The order of 8 February 2013 was therefore set aside and the new application left unexamined. The earlier court-fee award was not reversed; the source reports that the association had already reimbursed it. The claimant bears costs of the new application. Provision of the documents and termination of the main case remained in place.
Outcome of this decision
The order of 8 February 2013 was set aside and the separate application for additional costs left unexamined. The claimant bears costs of that application; the earlier costs allocation and termination of the main case were unchanged.