Advanced

Grundläggande rättssäkerhetskrav för dispute boards

Masgård, Karl LU (2015) JURM02 20151
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Dispute boards är en form av privat tvistlösning som de senaste decennierna blivit populär både i Sverige och internationellt. Tanken med en dispute board är att låta en nämnd av privatdomare avgöra tvister på ett mindre formellt sätt än vad som är möjligt vid domstol eller skiljeförfarande och på så vis nå ett snabbt avgörande. Parter har större möjlighet att bestämma hur förfarandet ska gå till men avgörandet kan endast få civilrättsliga verkningar.

Syftet med detta arbete är att utreda om det trots begränsade rättsverkningar kan ställas några krav på rättssäkerhet vid processen som gäller oavsett parternas överenskommelser. Jämförelser görs med skiljeförfaranden i Sverige och adjudication, ett tidsbegränsat förfarande som utgör ett... (More)
Dispute boards är en form av privat tvistlösning som de senaste decennierna blivit populär både i Sverige och internationellt. Tanken med en dispute board är att låta en nämnd av privatdomare avgöra tvister på ett mindre formellt sätt än vad som är möjligt vid domstol eller skiljeförfarande och på så vis nå ett snabbt avgörande. Parter har större möjlighet att bestämma hur förfarandet ska gå till men avgörandet kan endast få civilrättsliga verkningar.

Syftet med detta arbete är att utreda om det trots begränsade rättsverkningar kan ställas några krav på rättssäkerhet vid processen som gäller oavsett parternas överenskommelser. Jämförelser görs med skiljeförfaranden i Sverige och adjudication, ett tidsbegränsat förfarande som utgör ett första steg av tvistlösning inom den brittiska byggbranschen. Det undersöks också om den europeiska konventionen om mänskliga rättigheter ställer några krav på denna typ av förfarande. Sist studeras ett antal standardavtal för dispute boards som tillhandahålls av olika tvistlösningsinstitut. Meningen är att de ska visa hur förfarandet ser ut och används i praktiken.

En sammanställning av det undersökta materialet resulterar i ett antal regler och principer som bör tas i beaktande vid ett dispute board-förfarande. Enligt min bedömning blir ett avgörande ogiltigt om en dispute board-medlem inte är opartisk eller om någon parts möjlighet att föra sin talan begränsas i för stor omfattning. Detsamma gäller om förfarandet strider mot särskilt viktiga rättsnormer varav vissa är kända och räknas upp i arbetet. Andra är mer oklara och kan vara relevanta i begränsad utsträckning. Brister i kommunikationen mellan en dispute board och parter i målet kan troligen i allvarliga fall föranleda att avgörandet blir ogiltigt. En dispute board verkar inte vara tvungen att motivera sina avgöranden, men det anses vara god sed. (Less)
Abstract
A dispute board is a type of private dispute resolution which in the last decades has achieved great popularity in Sweden as well as in an international context. The idea behind the dispute board is that a small board of private judges can solve disputes in a less formal manner than what is possible in litigation or arbitration. In this way a more rapid decision can be reached. Parties are in greater control of the procedure but the decision is limited to having contractual legal effects.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether it is possible, limited legal effects notwithstanding, to demand a certain level of fairness in the procedure that cannot be disposed of through agreement between the parties. Comparisons are made... (More)
A dispute board is a type of private dispute resolution which in the last decades has achieved great popularity in Sweden as well as in an international context. The idea behind the dispute board is that a small board of private judges can solve disputes in a less formal manner than what is possible in litigation or arbitration. In this way a more rapid decision can be reached. Parties are in greater control of the procedure but the decision is limited to having contractual legal effects.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether it is possible, limited legal effects notwithstanding, to demand a certain level of fairness in the procedure that cannot be disposed of through agreement between the parties. Comparisons are made between dispute boards and Swedish arbitration and later also adjudication. Adjudication is a compulsory first step in dispute resolution for the British construction industry and operates under a strict time limit. The European convention for human rights is examined to see if it has any bearing on this kind of procedure. Lastly a number of model agreements for dispute boards are examined. They are provided by some of the largest global institutes for alternative dispute resolution and the intention is that they should give some indication of how the procedure is commonly used in practice.

A compilation of the studied material show a number of rules and principles that should be taken into account when conducting a dispute board-procedure. My assessment is that a decision is rendered invalid if a dispute board member is not impartial or if a party’s ability to make his claim is too severely limited. The same is true when the procedure is in breach of critically important legal norms, some of which are known and accounted for in the paper while others are less obvious and can be relevant to a limited extent. Insufficient communication between the dispute board and the parties can likely render a decision invalid in severe cases. It seems that a dispute board is not forced to publish the reasoning behind their decisions, but it is regarded as good practice to do so. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Masgård, Karl LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Fair Procedure in Dispute Boards
course
JURM02 20151
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
privat tvistlösning, dispute boards, civilrätt, rättssäkerhet, alternativ tvistlösning, adr
language
Swedish
id
5433527
date added to LUP
2015-06-16 14:36:15
date last changed
2015-06-18 14:04:25
@misc{5433527,
  abstract     = {A dispute board is a type of private dispute resolution which in the last decades has achieved great popularity in Sweden as well as in an international context. The idea behind the dispute board is that a small board of private judges can solve disputes in a less formal manner than what is possible in litigation or arbitration. In this way a more rapid decision can be reached. Parties are in greater control of the procedure but the decision is limited to having contractual legal effects.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate whether it is possible, limited legal effects notwithstanding, to demand a certain level of fairness in the procedure that cannot be disposed of through agreement between the parties. Comparisons are made between dispute boards and Swedish arbitration and later also adjudication. Adjudication is a compulsory first step in dispute resolution for the British construction industry and operates under a strict time limit. The European convention for human rights is examined to see if it has any bearing on this kind of procedure. Lastly a number of model agreements for dispute boards are examined. They are provided by some of the largest global institutes for alternative dispute resolution and the intention is that they should give some indication of how the procedure is commonly used in practice.

A compilation of the studied material show a number of rules and principles that should be taken into account when conducting a dispute board-procedure. My assessment is that a decision is rendered invalid if a dispute board member is not impartial or if a party’s ability to make his claim is too severely limited. The same is true when the procedure is in breach of critically important legal norms, some of which are known and accounted for in the paper while others are less obvious and can be relevant to a limited extent. Insufficient communication between the dispute board and the parties can likely render a decision invalid in severe cases. It seems that a dispute board is not forced to publish the reasoning behind their decisions, but it is regarded as good practice to do so.},
  author       = {Masgård, Karl},
  keyword      = {privat tvistlösning,dispute boards,civilrätt,rättssäkerhet,alternativ tvistlösning,adr},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Grundläggande rättssäkerhetskrav för dispute boards},
  year         = {2015},
}