Advanced

Skiljenämnds uppdragsöverskridande - Rättsläget efter Systembolagsdomen

Wassberg, Filippa LU (2010) JURM01 20101
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Kommersiella parter väljer idag i allt högre grad att slita sina tvister genom skiljeförfarande istället för att genomgå ett traditionellt domstolsförfarande. Skiljeförfarande är i grunden ett eninstansförfarande där parterna genom avtal avsäger rätten att på materiell grund överklaga skiljedomen. Detta medför emellertid inte att parterna avsagt sig rätten till ett processuellt korrekt förfarande. Möjligheten att klandra en skiljedom avser att tillfredställa detta krav på rättssäkerhet.

En klandergrund som åberopats allt oftare de senaste tio åren är den att skiljenämnden överskridit sitt uppdrag enligt 34 § första stycket 2 LSF. Uppdragsöverskridandet som avses består i att skiljemännen dömt över rättsfakta som inte åberopats av... (More)
Kommersiella parter väljer idag i allt högre grad att slita sina tvister genom skiljeförfarande istället för att genomgå ett traditionellt domstolsförfarande. Skiljeförfarande är i grunden ett eninstansförfarande där parterna genom avtal avsäger rätten att på materiell grund överklaga skiljedomen. Detta medför emellertid inte att parterna avsagt sig rätten till ett processuellt korrekt förfarande. Möjligheten att klandra en skiljedom avser att tillfredställa detta krav på rättssäkerhet.

En klandergrund som åberopats allt oftare de senaste tio åren är den att skiljenämnden överskridit sitt uppdrag enligt 34 § första stycket 2 LSF. Uppdragsöverskridandet som avses består i att skiljemännen dömt över rättsfakta som inte åberopats av någondera parten. Statistiken visar att få når framgång med en klandertalan baserad på denna grund och ändå åberopas den allt oftare. I december 2009 biföll dock Svea hovrätt en klandertalan grundad på att skiljenämnden dömt över icke åberopade rättsfakta. Med denna dom som utgångspunkt har författaren försökt kartlägga rättsläget idag och söka anledningen till att denna klandergrund åberopas flitigt trots dåligt utfall.

En genomgång av praxis visar att det är uppenbart svårt för såväl parter som skiljemän att konstatera vad som utgjort rättsfakta i målet samt vad som har åberopats. Många gånger har skiljenämndens ordval medfört att part anser att skiljenämnden dömt över ett rättsfaktum som inte åberopats. I själva verket har skiljenämnden enbart konstaterat vad som framkommit genom nya formuleringar eller sammanfattat målet på ett sätt som känts främmande för parterna. Svårigheten att skilja på vad som utgjort domskälsvisa resonemang och vad som kan anses vara ett införande av nya rättsfakta i målet har visat sig vara en utmärkande anledning just då många klandertalan bygger just på denna missuppfattning.

Författaren har kommit fram till att otillfredsställande kunskap om under vilka omständigheter en dom kan klandras under åberopande av att skiljedom grundats på icke åberopade omständigheter är en stor faktor till att de flesta klandermål inte vinner bifall. Det kan också konstateras att skiljeförfaranden allt oftare inbegriper suveräna stater som en av parterna vilket sätter stor press på ombuden att uttömma alla medel för upprättelse. Tvisterna är ofta mycket komplicerade och rör även stora summor pengar varför påtryckningar från klient mot ombudet förmodligen kan bli så påtagliga att man väljer att driva en klanderprocess, ibland mot bättre vetande.

Systembolagsdomen visar att klandergrunden förutsätter ett kvalificerat åsidosättande av dispositionsprincipen där omformuleringar eller missvisande utdrag ur skiljedomar inte kvalificerar till upphävning. I de fall då skiljenämnden använt sig av recit minskar även skiljenämndens tolkningsutrymme vad gäller att förstå parternas åberopanden. Trots Systembolagsdomen är praxis fortsatt tunn och författaren drar inte mer långtgående slutsatser av domen än att det är en fingervisning om vad som krävs för att kullkasta en skiljedom under denna klandergrund. (Less)
Abstract
Today, commercial parties are more likely to choose arbitration as a means of solving their indifferences rather than traditional court proceedings. Arbitration is basically a single instance procedure where the parties by agreement waive their right to appeal on substantive grounds. However, this does not preclude the parties the right to due process. The possibility to challenge an arbitral award on procedural grounds aims to satisfy a requirement of legal certainty.

During the last ten years it has become more common to challenge arbitral awards on the ground that the arbitral tribunal has exceeded its mandate in accordance with article 34, first paragraph, second phrase LSF. The ground aimed at in this thesis is when the arbitral... (More)
Today, commercial parties are more likely to choose arbitration as a means of solving their indifferences rather than traditional court proceedings. Arbitration is basically a single instance procedure where the parties by agreement waive their right to appeal on substantive grounds. However, this does not preclude the parties the right to due process. The possibility to challenge an arbitral award on procedural grounds aims to satisfy a requirement of legal certainty.

During the last ten years it has become more common to challenge arbitral awards on the ground that the arbitral tribunal has exceeded its mandate in accordance with article 34, first paragraph, second phrase LSF. The ground aimed at in this thesis is when the arbitral tribunal gives an award on the basis of arguments that were never put forward by either party. Statistics show that very few claimants are successful in their challenges based on this specific ground and yet, it is invoked relatively often. However, in December 2009, the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm set aside an arbitral award based on this very specific ground. With this judgment as a starting point, the author has aimed to identify the legal situation today and to search the reasons behind the frequent invocation of this challenging ground despite bad outcomes.

It is clear, when reviewing relevant case law, that there are obvious difficulties amongst parties and arbitrators to point out what constitutes factual circumstances and what has been duly invoked. Many times, the arbitral tribunal’s choice of wording has resulted in one party being left with the opinion that the tribunal has decided the case on arguments that were never put forward whereas, in fact, the tribunal has expressed the circumstances in a different way than that of the parties. The difficulties of separating obiter dictum from introducing new factual circumstances seems to be the most common reason for challenges on this ground, which is proved by the many challenges based on this misconception.

The author’s conclusion is that insufficient knowledge regarding which circumstances that qualify for challenging an award is a key factor as to why most challenges are unsuccessful. It can also be noted that arbitrations nowadays quite often comprise of sovereign states as one of the parties. This places the counsels under greater expectations to exhaust all legal means available, including challenging arbitral awards. Also, the disputes are frequently very complicated and concern large sums of money, which may have a greater impact on the counsels than expected, leading them to take cases to further instances.

The case of Systembolaget indicates that this ground for challenging requires a qualified breach of the Swedish ”dispositionsprincipen”, meaning, in this case, that the respondent must be able to understand the claim that has been made by the claimant and must know what he is to defend himself against. Reformulations or misleading excerpts from arbitral awards do not qualify. We also know that where the arbitral tribunal circulates a recital (Sw: recit), the discretion of the tribunal’s interpretation as to understanding the invoked factual circumstances is reduced. Notwithstanding the case of Systembolaget, case law is still scarce and the author draws the conclusion that this particular case is not the outer limit but a hint of what is required to set aside an arbitral award under Swedish law. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Wassberg, Filippa LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Arbitral Tribunals' exceeding of mandate - what happens after the Systembolaget case?
course
JURM01 20101
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
avtalsrätt, skiljemannarätt, klander
language
Swedish
id
1698325
date added to LUP
2010-10-22 08:34:07
date last changed
2010-10-22 08:41:19
@misc{1698325,
  abstract     = {Today, commercial parties are more likely to choose arbitration as a means of solving their indifferences rather than traditional court proceedings. Arbitration is basically a single instance procedure where the parties by agreement waive their right to appeal on substantive grounds. However, this does not preclude the parties the right to due process. The possibility to challenge an arbitral award on procedural grounds aims to satisfy a requirement of legal certainty.  

During the last ten years it has become more common to challenge arbitral awards on the ground that the arbitral tribunal has exceeded its mandate in accordance with article 34, first paragraph, second phrase LSF. The ground aimed at in this thesis is when the arbitral tribunal gives an award on the basis of arguments that were never put forward by either party. Statistics show that very few claimants are successful in their challenges based on this specific ground and yet, it is invoked relatively often. However, in December 2009, the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm set aside an arbitral award based on this very specific ground. With this judgment as a starting point, the author has aimed to identify the legal situation today and to search the reasons behind the frequent invocation of this challenging ground despite bad outcomes.

It is clear, when reviewing relevant case law, that there are obvious difficulties amongst parties and arbitrators to point out what constitutes factual circumstances and what has been duly invoked. Many times, the arbitral tribunal’s choice of wording has resulted in one party being left with the opinion that the tribunal has decided the case on arguments that were never put forward whereas, in fact, the tribunal has expressed the circumstances in a different way than that of the parties.  The difficulties of separating obiter dictum from introducing new factual circumstances seems to be the most common reason for challenges on this ground, which is proved by the many challenges based on this misconception. 

The author’s conclusion is that insufficient knowledge regarding which circumstances that qualify for challenging an award is a key factor as to why most challenges are unsuccessful. It can also be noted that arbitrations nowadays quite often comprise of sovereign states as one of the parties. This places the counsels under greater expectations to exhaust all legal means available, including challenging arbitral awards. Also, the disputes are frequently very complicated and concern large sums of money, which may have a greater impact on the counsels than expected, leading them to take cases to further instances.

The case of Systembolaget indicates that this ground for challenging requires a qualified breach of the Swedish ”dispositionsprincipen”, meaning, in this case, that the respondent must be able to understand the claim that has been made by the claimant and must know what he is to defend himself against. Reformulations or misleading excerpts from arbitral awards do not qualify. We also know that where the arbitral tribunal circulates a recital (Sw: recit), the discretion of the tribunal’s interpretation as to understanding the invoked factual circumstances is reduced. Notwithstanding the case of Systembolaget, case law is still scarce and the author draws the conclusion that this particular case is not the outer limit but a hint of what is required to set aside an arbitral award under Swedish law.},
  author       = {Wassberg, Filippa},
  keyword      = {avtalsrätt,skiljemannarätt,klander},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Skiljenämnds uppdragsöverskridande - Rättsläget efter Systembolagsdomen},
  year         = {2010},
}