Ingen (skilje)nämnd, ingen glömd - om prövningen av skiljenämnds behörighet
(2017) JURM02 20171Department of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Parter kan genom att införa en skiljeklausul som bestämmelse i ett avtal välja att förbehålla prövningen av tvister i anledning av det avtalet åt skiljenämnd. När nämnden eller domstol har att avgöra om skiljenämnden är behörig att pröva en viss tvist kan det hända att en faktisk omständighet är av omedelbar relevans både för avgörandet i behörighetsfrågan och för avgörandet i sakfrågan. Dessa omständigheter brukar benämnas dubbelrelevanta rättsfaktum. För att undvika att en skiljenämnd eller domstol tvingas gå in på en materiell prövning av käromålet för att avgöra om domstolen eller skiljenämnden är behörig har HD etablerat påståendedoktrinen.
Syftet med min uppsats är att utreda den exakta innebörden av påståendedoktrinen. För att... (More) - Parter kan genom att införa en skiljeklausul som bestämmelse i ett avtal välja att förbehålla prövningen av tvister i anledning av det avtalet åt skiljenämnd. När nämnden eller domstol har att avgöra om skiljenämnden är behörig att pröva en viss tvist kan det hända att en faktisk omständighet är av omedelbar relevans både för avgörandet i behörighetsfrågan och för avgörandet i sakfrågan. Dessa omständigheter brukar benämnas dubbelrelevanta rättsfaktum. För att undvika att en skiljenämnd eller domstol tvingas gå in på en materiell prövning av käromålet för att avgöra om domstolen eller skiljenämnden är behörig har HD etablerat påståendedoktrinen.
Syftet med min uppsats är att utreda den exakta innebörden av påståendedoktrinen. För att göra detta kommer jag först att fastställa hur den aktuella lagstiftningen ser ut gällande prövningen av skiljenämnds behörighet. Sedan kommer jag att gå igenom all relevant HD praxis angående påståendedoktrinen för att kunna följa doktrinens skapande och utveckling genom åren. Jag kommer även att beröra den närliggande anknytningsdoktrinen för att utreda dess innebörd och dess förhållande till påståendedoktrinen. Jag kommer även att diskutera och redogöra för vad jag valt att kalla genomlysningsdoktrinen, som jag menar att HD etablerat i ett beslut från den 7 april 2017.
Efter att jag redogjort för den relevanta lagstiftningen och praxisen kommer jag att analysera och diskutera vad påståendedoktrinens exakta innebörd kan sägas vara. I detta kommer jag att utreda dess omfattning, tillämpning och vilka förutsättningar som måste föreligga för att doktrinen ska tillämpas. Jag kommer löpande att ge mina egna åsikter och tankar gällande HD:s praxis och påståendedoktrinens innebörd. Avslutningsvis kommer jag att sammanställa rättsläget gällande påståendedoktrinen, och ställa upp hur prövningen av skiljenämnds behörighet ska gå till väga. (Less) - Abstract
- By including an arbitration clause in an agreement, two parties can choose to resolve future disputes relating to that agreement through arbitration. When the arbitration board, or a court, is to determine if the arbitration board has the authority to solve a dispute the situation can arise when a certain fact of the case is of relevance both to determine the jurisdiction of the board, but also to the case itself. These kinds of facts are usually called doubly pertinent facts. To avoid the situation where an arbitration board or a court has to investigate such a doubly pertinent fact to determine its jurisdiction the Swedish Supreme Court has established what is known as the doctrine of assertion.
The purpose of this thesis is to... (More) - By including an arbitration clause in an agreement, two parties can choose to resolve future disputes relating to that agreement through arbitration. When the arbitration board, or a court, is to determine if the arbitration board has the authority to solve a dispute the situation can arise when a certain fact of the case is of relevance both to determine the jurisdiction of the board, but also to the case itself. These kinds of facts are usually called doubly pertinent facts. To avoid the situation where an arbitration board or a court has to investigate such a doubly pertinent fact to determine its jurisdiction the Swedish Supreme Court has established what is known as the doctrine of assertion.
The purpose of this thesis is to determine the exact meaning of the doctrine of assertion. To do this I will first establish what the relevant Swedish legislation is regarding the jurisdiction of arbitration boards. After that I will account for, and analyze, the relevant cases from the Swedish Supreme Court, account for the inception of the doctrine and follow its progress through the years. I will also analyze the Supreme Courts precedents regarding what is called the doctrine of connection, and investigate its relation to the doctrine of assertion. I will also discuss what I have chosen to call the see-through doctrine.
After accounting for the relevant legislation and the relevant precedent I will use that to try to examine and establish the exact meaning of the doctrine of assertion. This examination will include its scope, its application, and what circumstances has to be present for its application. I will throughout the thesis give my own opinions on the doctrine of assertion and the analyzed cases from the Supreme Court. Lastly I will summarize what the meaning of the doctrine of assertion and give my opinion on how to determine the authority of an arbitration board.
My conclusions mostly relate to the doctrine of assertion, the doctrine of connection and the see-through doctrine. The meaning of the doctrine of assertion is defined to be that within the examination of the authority of an arbitration board, the court or the board are to accept the existence of the claimants doubly pertinent facts. Though there are some exceptions to this.
I also conclude that the doctrine of connection is not in conflict with the doctrine of assertion. The two doctrines are instead meant to be applied at different stages of the examination of the authority of the board. The same is concluded to be true regarding the see-through doctrine. These to doctrines are parallel to the doctrine of assertion and their application both result in a broadening of the scope of an arbitration clause. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8909057
- author
- Lantz, Andreas LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- An analysis of the doctrine of assertion in Swedish arbitration law
- course
- JURM02 20171
- year
- 2017
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Förmögenhetsrätt, processrätt, skiljemannarätt, påståendedoktrinen
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8909057
- date added to LUP
- 2017-06-21 11:23:03
- date last changed
- 2017-06-21 11:23:03
@misc{8909057,
abstract = {{By including an arbitration clause in an agreement, two parties can choose to resolve future disputes relating to that agreement through arbitration. When the arbitration board, or a court, is to determine if the arbitration board has the authority to solve a dispute the situation can arise when a certain fact of the case is of relevance both to determine the jurisdiction of the board, but also to the case itself. These kinds of facts are usually called doubly pertinent facts. To avoid the situation where an arbitration board or a court has to investigate such a doubly pertinent fact to determine its jurisdiction the Swedish Supreme Court has established what is known as the doctrine of assertion.
The purpose of this thesis is to determine the exact meaning of the doctrine of assertion. To do this I will first establish what the relevant Swedish legislation is regarding the jurisdiction of arbitration boards. After that I will account for, and analyze, the relevant cases from the Swedish Supreme Court, account for the inception of the doctrine and follow its progress through the years. I will also analyze the Supreme Courts precedents regarding what is called the doctrine of connection, and investigate its relation to the doctrine of assertion. I will also discuss what I have chosen to call the see-through doctrine.
After accounting for the relevant legislation and the relevant precedent I will use that to try to examine and establish the exact meaning of the doctrine of assertion. This examination will include its scope, its application, and what circumstances has to be present for its application. I will throughout the thesis give my own opinions on the doctrine of assertion and the analyzed cases from the Supreme Court. Lastly I will summarize what the meaning of the doctrine of assertion and give my opinion on how to determine the authority of an arbitration board.
My conclusions mostly relate to the doctrine of assertion, the doctrine of connection and the see-through doctrine. The meaning of the doctrine of assertion is defined to be that within the examination of the authority of an arbitration board, the court or the board are to accept the existence of the claimants doubly pertinent facts. Though there are some exceptions to this.
I also conclude that the doctrine of connection is not in conflict with the doctrine of assertion. The two doctrines are instead meant to be applied at different stages of the examination of the authority of the board. The same is concluded to be true regarding the see-through doctrine. These to doctrines are parallel to the doctrine of assertion and their application both result in a broadening of the scope of an arbitration clause.}},
author = {{Lantz, Andreas}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Ingen (skilje)nämnd, ingen glömd - om prövningen av skiljenämnds behörighet}},
year = {{2017}},
}