This detailed case study on Finnish court proceedings provides that unfair divorce agreements were not adjusted by the courts, even though several procedural, marital, contractual, and criminal law provisions provide for annulment or adjustment. Accordingly, the court appeared reluctant to apply the correct laws in practice, even within its own actions. Additionally, the legal representatives and attorneys misled both the court and Mia with false evidence or untrue statements, yet with no accountability. What is more, Mia lost her case even before the proceedings began, as the District Court did not permit an official examination of Tim’s assets. As a result, the factual basis for assessing annulment or adjustment of marital agreements was not established. Thus, the proceedings became a guessing game, pretending to evaluate Tim’s true assets from €20 to €40 million, rather than a structured legal determination. In practice, procedural failures and judicial neglect only highlighted the power and monetary disparity between the spouses, and the key legal protections for the weaker party in marriage and contract law were not applied. Although initially appearing coincidental, the observed pattern suggests systemic procedural concerns. Issues relating to witness impartiality are also raised, as several witnesses appeared to have a direct or indirect connection to Tim. However, the unfair divorce can still be corrected by invoking the marital witnessing requirements on disinterested witnesses, as all of them were interested and favored Tim. They were either his subordinates, his corporate lawyer, or Mia’s first attorney, who turned against her.
Keywords: Adjustment, annulment, attorneys’ loyalty, case law, code of judicial procedure, contract, crime, divorce, equality before the law, judicial bias, marriage.
Citation: Brink, R. R. (2026). ). A Thorough Case Study On Fairness in Finnish Divorce Court Proceedings – Do Failures in Judicial Procedure and Legal Application Disadvantage Ex-Wives of Prominent Men?. J Psychol Neurosci; 8(3):1-12. DOI : https://doi.org/10.47485/2693-2490.1159