Facts
On 14 July 2021, the plaintiff [A.] filed a claim against the defendant [B.] for claims arising from a tenancy agreement. The Dorneck-Thierstein Magistrate's Court dismissed the claim on 17 April 2023, as the plaintiff had not appeared for the main hearing. The operative part of the judgment was served on the plaintiff, but she did not collect it. On 28 April 2023, the judgment was deemed to have been served pursuant to Art. 138 para. 3 lit. a CPC. On 20 June 2023, the plaintiff requested a written statement of reasons for the judgment, which the Magistrate's Court dismissed as being late. The plaintiff's appeal against this dismissal was also dismissed by the High Court of the Canton of Solothurn on 20 July 2023.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court holds that the lower court rightly assumed that the first-instance judgment had been validly served on the plaintiff. Although the plaintiff had indicated her new address in her legal submissions, the court documents continued to be served at the old address and were received there by an authorized recipient. The plaintiff therefore had to expect further court documents to be served at the old address and, in good faith, should have taken all necessary…