Skiljeavtal, "tredje man" och step-in-klausuler – Särskilt om skiljebundenhetens omfattning och rättsliga grund
(2025) JURM02 20252Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- I svensk rätt gäller som huvudregel att ett avtal endast är bindande mellan parterna. Så är fallet även vad gäller skiljeavtal. Vissa typsituationer, till exempel singularsuccession och borgen, kan ge upphov till frågan om någon som inte skrivit under ett skiljeavtal (en icke-signatär) trots allt är skiljebunden. En följdfråga som uppstår är om icke-signatärens skiljebundenhet förutsätter att icke-signatären intar partsställning i ett skiljeavtal, eller om icke-signatären kan bli bunden i egenskap av tredje man.
Uppsatsen avser klargöra i vilka situationer en icke-signatär kan bli skiljebunden och vilken rättslig grund skiljebundenheten vilar på. Utredningen företas med utgångspunkt i typsituationer vid singularsuccession och borgen.... (More) - I svensk rätt gäller som huvudregel att ett avtal endast är bindande mellan parterna. Så är fallet även vad gäller skiljeavtal. Vissa typsituationer, till exempel singularsuccession och borgen, kan ge upphov till frågan om någon som inte skrivit under ett skiljeavtal (en icke-signatär) trots allt är skiljebunden. En följdfråga som uppstår är om icke-signatärens skiljebundenhet förutsätter att icke-signatären intar partsställning i ett skiljeavtal, eller om icke-signatären kan bli bunden i egenskap av tredje man.
Uppsatsen avser klargöra i vilka situationer en icke-signatär kan bli skiljebunden och vilken rättslig grund skiljebundenheten vilar på. Utredningen företas med utgångspunkt i typsituationer vid singularsuccession och borgen. De allmänt accepterade rättskällorna ger inte något entydigt svar på skiljebundenhetens omfattning i dessa situationer. Således konsulteras i stor utsträckning juridisk doktrin för att söka ledning i hur de allmänt accepterade rättskällorna ska tolkas och förstås. Framställningen begränsas inte till en analytisk uttolkning av gällande rätt, utan innehåller även en kritisk granskning av den skiljedomsrättsliga systematiken avseende icke-signatärers skiljebundenhet.
Förutom typsituationerna som behandlas i uppsatsen kan tänkas andra, mer säregna situationer där en icke-signatärs eventuella skiljebundenhet är svår att precisera. Som exempel kan nämnas när rättigheter enligt en step-in-klausul i ett direktavtal tas i anspråk. Mot bakgrund av utredningen om hur icke-signatärers skiljebundenhet ska preciseras och förklaras i typsituationerna, analyseras också skiljebundenhetens omfattning när rättigheter enligt step-in-klausuler tas i anspråk. Målet är att uppsatsen därigenom bidrar till att klargöra rättsläget även i detta avseende.
Högsta domstolens uttalanden i NJA 1997 s. 866 ger stöd för att den som förvärvar en rättighet som omfattas av ett skiljeavtal blir skiljebunden i förhållande till den kvarstående parten. Skiljebundenheten följer inte av att rättighetsförvärvaren får anses ha intagit partsställning i skiljeavtalet, utan av en skiljerättslig princip som är motiverad av rättspolitiska skäl. Rättighetsförvärvaren blir alltså skiljebunden i egenskap av tredje man. Det är inte klart om den kvarstående parten blir skiljebunden i förhållande till rättighetsförvärvaren.
Vid borgen är den övervägande uppfattningen i doktrin att både borgensmannen och borgenären blir skiljebundna i förhållande till varandra om huvudfordringen omfattas av ett skiljeavtal. Som jag ser det kan såväl borgensmannens som borgenärens skiljebundenhet förklaras följa av en skiljerättslig princip. Skiljebundenheten förutsätter alltså inte att borgenären och borgensmannen får anses ha träffat ett särskilt skiljeavtal.
Vid överlåtelser av enstaka skyldigheter samt vid överlåtelser av samtliga rättigheter och skyldigheter enligt ett avtal, synes saknas en skiljerättslig princip att grunda skiljebundenhet på. En övertagande gäldenär eller inträdande part blir därmed endast skiljebunden om denne genom övertagandet eller inträdet intagit partsställning i ett skiljeavtal med den kvarstående parten.
När rättigheter enligt en step-in-klausul i ett direktavtal tas i anspråk, bör en behörig part och en projektentreprenör endast bli skiljebundna i förhållande till varandra om de särskilt avtalat om sådan skiljebundenhet. Det saknas alltså en skiljerättslig princip att grunda skiljebundenhet på. Direktavtalet med step-in-klausulen bör inte utan vidare ges betydelsen att ett särskilt skiljeavtal anses ha träffats, eller att den behöriga parten har rätt att inträda i eller åberopa skiljeklausulen i det underliggande avtalet som rättigheterna enligt step-in-klausulen avser. (Less) - Abstract
- Under Swedish law, an agreement is in principle binding only between the parties. This also applies to arbitration agreements. However, in certain typical situations, such as party substitution by way of singular succession and guarantee liability, the question arises as to whether a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement is bound by it. A related issue is whether a non-signatory may be bound by arbitration in the capacity of a third party, or whether such binding presupposes that the non-signatory assumes the position of a party to an arbitration agreement.
This thesis aims to clarify in which situations a non-signatory may be bound by arbitration and the legal basis for such binding. The examination is based on typical situations... (More) - Under Swedish law, an agreement is in principle binding only between the parties. This also applies to arbitration agreements. However, in certain typical situations, such as party substitution by way of singular succession and guarantee liability, the question arises as to whether a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement is bound by it. A related issue is whether a non-signatory may be bound by arbitration in the capacity of a third party, or whether such binding presupposes that the non-signatory assumes the position of a party to an arbitration agreement.
This thesis aims to clarify in which situations a non-signatory may be bound by arbitration and the legal basis for such binding. The examination is based on typical situations in the case of singular succession and guarantee liability. The generally accepted sources of law do not provide clear answers regarding the scope of arbitration agreements in such cases. Thus, legal doctrine is extensively consulted to assist in interpreting the generally accepted sources of law. The thesis is not confined to an analytical interpretation of applicable law; it also includes a critical examination of the systematics of arbitration law.
In addition to the typical situations examined, there are other, more specific situations in which it is difficult to determine whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement. One such example concerns the invocation of rights under a step-in clause in a direct agreement. The scope of an arbitration agreement when rights under step-in clauses are invoked is analysed in light of the findings regarding the binding of non-signatories in the typical situations. The essay aims to contribute to clarifying the applicable law also in this regard.
The Supreme Court’s statements in NJA 1997 s. 866 supports the view that, in the case of the transfer of rights, the assignee is bound by arbitration in relation to the remaining party. The binding effect of the arbitration agreement does not result from the fact that the assignee is considered to have assumed the position of a party to the arbitration agreement, but rather from a principle of arbitration law that is justified on legal policy grounds. The assignee is thus bound by arbitration in the capacity of a third party. It is not clear whether the remaining party becomes bound by arbitration in relation to the assignee.
In the context of guarantees, the prevailing view in doctrine is that both the guarantor and the creditor are bound by arbitration in relation to each other if the principal claim is covered by an arbitration agreement. It is my contention that the guarantor’s and the creditor’s obligation to arbitrate can be explained by a principle of arbitration law. Consequently, arbitration does not require that the creditor and the guarantor be regarded as having entered into a specific arbitration agreement.
In the case of transfers of individual obligations and transfers of all rights and obligations under an agreement, there appears to be no principle of arbitration law pursuant to which the successor and the remaining party are bound by arbitration in relation to each other. In such cases, a successor is bound by arbitration only if, as a result of the transfer, the successor assumes the position of a party to an arbitration agreement with the remaining party.
When rights under a step-in clause in a direct agreement are invoked, an eligible person and a project contractor should be bound by arbitration in relation to each other only if they have specifically agreed to this. There is no principle of arbitration law on which to base the obligation to arbitrate. The direct agreement containing the step-in clause should not automatically be interpreted as meaning that a separate arbitration agreement has been entered into, nor as granting the eligible person the right to enter into or invoke an arbitration clause contained in the underlying agreement to which the rights under the step-in clause relate. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9216920
- author
- Andersson, John LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Arbitration agreements, "third parties" and step-in clauses – On the scope of the obligation to arbitrate and its legal basis
- course
- JURM02 20252
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- civilrätt, processrätt, skiljedomsrätt, skiljeförfarande, singularsuccession, borgen, tredje man, step-in-klausuler, step-in-rättigheter
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9216920
- date added to LUP
- 2026-01-19 09:57:39
- date last changed
- 2026-01-19 09:57:39
@misc{9216920,
abstract = {{Under Swedish law, an agreement is in principle binding only between the parties. This also applies to arbitration agreements. However, in certain typical situations, such as party substitution by way of singular succession and guarantee liability, the question arises as to whether a non-signatory to the arbitration agreement is bound by it. A related issue is whether a non-signatory may be bound by arbitration in the capacity of a third party, or whether such binding presupposes that the non-signatory assumes the position of a party to an arbitration agreement.
This thesis aims to clarify in which situations a non-signatory may be bound by arbitration and the legal basis for such binding. The examination is based on typical situations in the case of singular succession and guarantee liability. The generally accepted sources of law do not provide clear answers regarding the scope of arbitration agreements in such cases. Thus, legal doctrine is extensively consulted to assist in interpreting the generally accepted sources of law. The thesis is not confined to an analytical interpretation of applicable law; it also includes a critical examination of the systematics of arbitration law.
In addition to the typical situations examined, there are other, more specific situations in which it is difficult to determine whether a non-signatory is bound by an arbitration agreement. One such example concerns the invocation of rights under a step-in clause in a direct agreement. The scope of an arbitration agreement when rights under step-in clauses are invoked is analysed in light of the findings regarding the binding of non-signatories in the typical situations. The essay aims to contribute to clarifying the applicable law also in this regard.
The Supreme Court’s statements in NJA 1997 s. 866 supports the view that, in the case of the transfer of rights, the assignee is bound by arbitration in relation to the remaining party. The binding effect of the arbitration agreement does not result from the fact that the assignee is considered to have assumed the position of a party to the arbitration agreement, but rather from a principle of arbitration law that is justified on legal policy grounds. The assignee is thus bound by arbitration in the capacity of a third party. It is not clear whether the remaining party becomes bound by arbitration in relation to the assignee.
In the context of guarantees, the prevailing view in doctrine is that both the guarantor and the creditor are bound by arbitration in relation to each other if the principal claim is covered by an arbitration agreement. It is my contention that the guarantor’s and the creditor’s obligation to arbitrate can be explained by a principle of arbitration law. Consequently, arbitration does not require that the creditor and the guarantor be regarded as having entered into a specific arbitration agreement.
In the case of transfers of individual obligations and transfers of all rights and obligations under an agreement, there appears to be no principle of arbitration law pursuant to which the successor and the remaining party are bound by arbitration in relation to each other. In such cases, a successor is bound by arbitration only if, as a result of the transfer, the successor assumes the position of a party to an arbitration agreement with the remaining party.
When rights under a step-in clause in a direct agreement are invoked, an eligible person and a project contractor should be bound by arbitration in relation to each other only if they have specifically agreed to this. There is no principle of arbitration law on which to base the obligation to arbitrate. The direct agreement containing the step-in clause should not automatically be interpreted as meaning that a separate arbitration agreement has been entered into, nor as granting the eligible person the right to enter into or invoke an arbitration clause contained in the underlying agreement to which the rights under the step-in clause relate.}},
author = {{Andersson, John}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Skiljeavtal, "tredje man" och step-in-klausuler – Särskilt om skiljebundenhetens omfattning och rättsliga grund}},
year = {{2025}},
}