Supreme Court restores land case to appeal court

Iceland’s Supreme Court has overturned a Court of Appeal ruling that invalidated proceedings in a land ownership dispute, finding that a district judge’s procedural error did not warrant a new trial. The case will return to the Court of Appeal for a decision on its merits, mbl.is reported.

The Supreme Court said the district judge’s handling of the case was not in line with the law and was open to criticism. Before issuing a ruling in the absence of the parties, the judge had sent their lawyers unclear and contradictory messages.

The dispute was brought by Dön ehf. against the owners of Dönustaðir, a property in Dalabyggð. The company is seeking recognition of direct ownership of part of the land and its rights, as well as a ruling on the boundary between the property’s separated land and Lambeyrar.

The case was filed at Reykjanes District Court in November 2023. Eight defendants accepted all the company’s claims; others initially sought to have the case dismissed. All judges at Reykjanes District Court later recused themselves, and the chief judge of Northwest District Court was assigned to handle the case.

The Supreme Court dispute concerned a hearing on November 22, 2024, when the district judge rejected a request to dismiss the case. The day before, the judge had invited the parties’ lawyers to attend the ruling in Sauðárkrókur, either in person or by video link. The lawyers raised no objection to the location and said it would be enough to receive the ruling by email.

The judge replied that he understood the lawyers to have given notice that they could not attend and would send them the ruling after delivering it. He then issued the ruling without either side present. The case continued, and on June 30, 2025, the defendants were found not liable for the company’s claims.

The Court of Appeal later invalidated the proceedings from the November 2024 hearing onward. It said the district judge should have discontinued the case because the plaintiff had not attended and had no legally acceptable reason for its absence.

The Supreme Court agreed that the lawyers had not given a legally acceptable reason for missing the hearing. But it said the judge’s messages gave them reason to believe their absence would not harm their clients. The judge should therefore have called a new hearing rather than ruling on the dismissal request without them.

However, the procedural error was not serious enough to invalidate the proceedings, the Supreme Court found. Six days after the hearing, the judge called a new one, which the parties attended without objection. The case then proceeded normally until the district court issued its decision.