Case law No. 12/2017/AL regarding determination of situations where the involved party had a summons for the first time after the Court had postponed its hearing
October 15, 2020 Case Law
This case law was approved by the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court on December 14, 2017 and promulgated under Decision No. 299/QD-CA of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court dated December 28, 2017.
Source of this case law: Cassasion Decision No. 14/2017/KDTM-GDT dated June 06, 2017 issued the Judicial Council of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the business, commercial case of “Dispute over the sale & purchase agreement” in Quang Tri between Q Joint Stock Company (having Mr. Dang Cong Danh as the legal representative, and Mr. Ho Nghia A as the authorized representative) as the plaintiff and T Company Limited (having Mr. Vo van T as the legal representative and Ms. Vo Thi T as the authorized representative) as the defendant.
In the case of “Determination of circumstances in which the involved party was legally summonsed in the first time after the Court had postponed its hearing”, the Court had postponed its hearing not due to any fault of the involved party (the plaintiff, the defendant, people with related rights and obligations) or the representative, the protector of rights and legitimate interests of the involved party. Afterwards, the court hearing had been re-opened, however, said involved party or the legal representative, the protector of rights and legitimate interests of the involved party were still absent from the court re-hearing. Thus, the Court shall determine that those situations is where the involved party, the legal representative or the protector, who had a legal summons for the first time, was absent from the court hearing.