Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Excess of Mandate, Failure to Exercise the Mandate, and the Interpretation of Procedural Acts in Swedish Arbitration Law

Hardenberger, Alexander LU (2026) In Nordic Commercial Law Review 2026.
Abstract (Swedish)
This article examines two closely related questions. The first concerns the limits of an arbitral tribunal’s authority to interpret the parties’ procedural acts, particular-ly pleadings of facts. It is argued that a fact may be treated as pleaded only where the party’s intended procedural effect has been expressed clearly and unequivocal-ly. Where uncertainty remains, the tribunal should ordinarily clarify the parties’ positions through its substantive direction of the proceedings rather than resolve ambiguities through extensive interpretative efforts. The second question concerns the classification of errors arising where an arbi-tral tribunal fails to determine the entirety of the dispute submitted by the parties. The article analyses... (More)
This article examines two closely related questions. The first concerns the limits of an arbitral tribunal’s authority to interpret the parties’ procedural acts, particular-ly pleadings of facts. It is argued that a fact may be treated as pleaded only where the party’s intended procedural effect has been expressed clearly and unequivocal-ly. Where uncertainty remains, the tribunal should ordinarily clarify the parties’ positions through its substantive direction of the proceedings rather than resolve ambiguities through extensive interpretative efforts. The second question concerns the classification of errors arising where an arbi-tral tribunal fails to determine the entirety of the dispute submitted by the parties. The article analyses situations in which the tribunal, through mistake, oversight, or misinterpretation of the parties’ procedural acts, determines less than the dispute submitted to it. It is argued that such situations should not merely be regarded as procedural irregularities. Rather, they also constitute failures to exercise the man-date conferred upon the tribunal by the parties. Consequently, both excesses and deficiencies in the exercise of the arbitral mandate should be understood as mani-festations of the same underlying principle: that the tribunal must respect the scope of the proceedings as determined by the parties’ procedural acts. The article has originally been published in Svensk Juristtidning (SvJT) 2025 pages 962–979 under the title “Uppdragsunderskridanden och feltolkning av process-handlingar” (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
keywords
Processrätt, Rättsfaktum, Bevisfaktum, Åberopande, Uppdragsöverskridande, Uppdragsunderskridande, Handläggningsfel, Procedural law, Excess of Mandate, Failure to Exercise the Mandate, e Interpretation of Procedural Acts, Swedish Arbitration Law
in
Nordic Commercial Law Review
volume
2026
article number
2026:6
publisher
Karnov Group
ISSN
2795-0468
project
Åberopsbörda i dispositiva tvistemål
Haltande rättskipning
language
English
LU publication?
yes
additional info
ART20260006-NCLR
id
84e60d9f-3be1-40e8-8ea5-8388f9cf7b06
alternative location
https://www.karnovgroup.dk/hubfs/denmark/Nordic%20Commercial%20Law%20Review%20-%20Articles/ART20260006-NCLR.pdf
date added to LUP
2026-06-29 13:18:08
date last changed
2026-06-30 08:44:35
@article{84e60d9f-3be1-40e8-8ea5-8388f9cf7b06,
  abstract     = {{This article examines two closely related questions. The first concerns the limits of an arbitral tribunal’s authority to interpret the parties’ procedural acts, particular-ly pleadings of facts. It is argued that a fact may be treated as pleaded only where the party’s intended procedural effect has been expressed clearly and unequivocal-ly. Where uncertainty remains, the tribunal should ordinarily clarify the parties’ positions through its substantive direction of the proceedings rather than resolve ambiguities through extensive interpretative efforts. The second question concerns the classification of errors arising where an arbi-tral tribunal fails to determine the entirety of the dispute submitted by the parties. The article analyses situations in which the tribunal, through mistake, oversight, or misinterpretation of the parties’ procedural acts, determines less than the dispute submitted to it. It is argued that such situations should not merely be regarded as procedural irregularities. Rather, they also constitute failures to exercise the man-date conferred upon the tribunal by the parties. Consequently, both excesses and deficiencies in the exercise of the arbitral mandate should be understood as mani-festations of the same underlying principle: that the tribunal must respect the scope of the proceedings as determined by the parties’ procedural acts. The article has originally been published in Svensk Juristtidning (SvJT) 2025 pages 962–979 under the title “Uppdragsunderskridanden och feltolkning av process-handlingar”}},
  author       = {{Hardenberger, Alexander}},
  issn         = {{2795-0468}},
  keywords     = {{Processrätt; Rättsfaktum; Bevisfaktum; Åberopande; Uppdragsöverskridande; Uppdragsunderskridande; Handläggningsfel; Procedural law; Excess of Mandate; Failure to Exercise the Mandate; e Interpretation of Procedural Acts; Swedish Arbitration Law}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  publisher    = {{Karnov Group}},
  series       = {{Nordic Commercial Law Review}},
  title        = {{Excess of Mandate, Failure to Exercise the Mandate, and the Interpretation of Procedural Acts in Swedish Arbitration Law}},
  url          = {{https://www.karnovgroup.dk/hubfs/denmark/Nordic%20Commercial%20Law%20Review%20-%20Articles/ART20260006-NCLR.pdf}},
  volume       = {{2026}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}