Advanced

Processföringsmetoden global claim - särskilt i entreprenadtvister

Eckerman, Felicia LU (2016) JURM02 20161
Department of Law
Abstract
In construction projects it often arise disputes concerning the contractor’s right to an extension of time and compensation for extra costs. In these disputes it can be challenging for the contractor to prove what has caused the effect that the contractor consider entitle to extension of time or compensation for extra costs, and how great the need for an extension of time or extra costs are. Such complexity has lead to the development of the litigation method global claim. A global claim implies that the contractor in a single claim seeks extension of time or compensation for extra costs for a group of employer risk events, but does not demonstrate a direct link between an individual employer risk event and a specific extension of time or... (More)
In construction projects it often arise disputes concerning the contractor’s right to an extension of time and compensation for extra costs. In these disputes it can be challenging for the contractor to prove what has caused the effect that the contractor consider entitle to extension of time or compensation for extra costs, and how great the need for an extension of time or extra costs are. Such complexity has lead to the development of the litigation method global claim. A global claim implies that the contractor in a single claim seeks extension of time or compensation for extra costs for a group of employer risk events, but does not demonstrate a direct link between an individual employer risk event and a specific extension of time or an extra cost. Over the years, this litigation method has been more or less successful in common law-countries.

In Sweden, the law does not specifically regulate commercial construction contracts. Instead, there is often a contractual relationship based on a standard contract between a contractor and an employer. Accordingly, it is this standard contract that constitutes the legal framework and regulate whether a contractor has a right to compensation for extra costs or extension of time.

This paper will examine and analyse, in the light of the construction standard contracts and the Swedish procedural- and civil law, if it is successful to use a global claim in construction disputes in a Swedish court.

In Swedish law there is a requirement that the claimant in the summons application indicate a distinct claim. Because of this requirement, the contractor probably does not have the opportunity to make his claim as a global claim. The contractor has to specify the various costs or the need for extension of time that exist in the aggregated requirement in a global claim. It is, however, unclear whether the contractor needs to describe a detailed casual link between the extra costs or the extension of time and the employer risk event. The meaning of the civil requirement of a causal link is not clear. The court, rather than to decide what the requirement of casual link further means, usually decides whether there is a casual link by the evidence. Thus, there are numerous indications that a court will determine whether there is a casual link or not by the evidence. Furthermore, there are probably openings for evidence alleviation when the contractor has to prove the alleged casual link. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Vid entreprenadprojekt uppkommer ofta tvister rörande entreprenörens rätt till tidsförlängning och ersättning för merkostnader. Vid sådana tvister kan det vara svårt för entreprenören att visa vad som har orsakat den händelse som entreprenören menar ger rätt till tidsförlängning eller ersättning, och hur stort behovet av tidsförlängning eller merkostnader är. Dessa svårigheter har lett till utvecklingen av processföringsmetoden global claim. Global claim innebär att entreprenören i ett enda yrkade begär tidsförlängning eller ersättning för flera olika händelser som beställaren påstås bära ansvar för, utan att tydligt beskriva ett direkt orsakssamband mellan en specifik ansvarsgrundande händelse och en enskild mertid eller merkostnad. Denna... (More)
Vid entreprenadprojekt uppkommer ofta tvister rörande entreprenörens rätt till tidsförlängning och ersättning för merkostnader. Vid sådana tvister kan det vara svårt för entreprenören att visa vad som har orsakat den händelse som entreprenören menar ger rätt till tidsförlängning eller ersättning, och hur stort behovet av tidsförlängning eller merkostnader är. Dessa svårigheter har lett till utvecklingen av processföringsmetoden global claim. Global claim innebär att entreprenören i ett enda yrkade begär tidsförlängning eller ersättning för flera olika händelser som beställaren påstås bära ansvar för, utan att tydligt beskriva ett direkt orsakssamband mellan en specifik ansvarsgrundande händelse och en enskild mertid eller merkostnad. Denna processföringsmetod har under åren varit mer eller mindre framgångsrik i common law-länder.

I Sverige är kommersiella entreprenader inte specifikt lagreglerade. Mellan en beställare och en entreprenör föreligger oftast ett avtalsförhållande som grundar sig på ett standardavtal. Det är således detta standardavtal som utgör den rättsliga ramen för huruvida entreprenören har rätt till ersättning eller tidsförlängning.

I denna uppsats utreds och analyseras om det vid entreprenadtvister i svensk domstol är framgångsrikt att använda sig av global claim, mot bakgrund av de entreprenadrättsliga standardavtalen och process- och civilrättsliga regler i svensk rätt.

I svensk rätt föreligger det ett krav på att käranden i stämningsansökan anger ett bestämt yrkande. På grund av detta krav torde en entreprenör inte kunna ha möjlighet att föra sin talan som ett global claim. Entreprenören kommer vara tvungen att specificera de olika kostnader eller behov av tidsförlängning som förekommer i det klumpsummekrav som föreligger vid ett global claim. Huruvida entreprenören måste beskriva ett detaljerat orsakssamband mellan de kostnader eller den tid som denne yrkar och den handling som beställaren påstås vara ansvarig för är dock mer oklart. Innebörden av det civilrättsliga kravet på orsakssamband är inte helt klart och domstolen brukar som regel avgöra om orsakssamband anses föreligga genom bevisning istället för att ta ställning till vad kravet på orsakssamband närmare innebär. Mycket talar således för att en domstol kommer att avgöra frågan om ett orsakssamband anses föreligga genom bevisningen. Vidare torde det kunna finnas möjligheter till bevislättnader för entreprenören när denne har att bevisa det påstådda orsakssambandet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Eckerman, Felicia LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
The litigation method global claim - especially in construction disputes
course
JURM02 20161
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Processrätt, Entreprenadrätt, Global claim, Skadeståndsrätt, Avtalsrätt
language
Swedish
id
8873608
date added to LUP
2016-06-02 13:07:44
date last changed
2017-01-27 14:25:13
@misc{8873608,
  abstract     = {In construction projects it often arise disputes concerning the contractor’s right to an extension of time and compensation for extra costs. In these disputes it can be challenging for the contractor to prove what has caused the effect that the contractor consider entitle to extension of time or compensation for extra costs, and how great the need for an extension of time or extra costs are. Such complexity has lead to the development of the litigation method global claim. A global claim implies that the contractor in a single claim seeks extension of time or compensation for extra costs for a group of employer risk events, but does not demonstrate a direct link between an individual employer risk event and a specific extension of time or an extra cost. Over the years, this litigation method has been more or less successful in common law-countries. 

In Sweden, the law does not specifically regulate commercial construction contracts. Instead, there is often a contractual relationship based on a standard contract between a contractor and an employer. Accordingly, it is this standard contract that constitutes the legal framework and regulate whether a contractor has a right to compensation for extra costs or extension of time.

This paper will examine and analyse, in the light of the construction standard contracts and the Swedish procedural- and civil law, if it is successful to use a global claim in construction disputes in a Swedish court. 

In Swedish law there is a requirement that the claimant in the summons application indicate a distinct claim. Because of this requirement, the contractor probably does not have the opportunity to make his claim as a global claim. The contractor has to specify the various costs or the need for extension of time that exist in the aggregated requirement in a global claim. It is, however, unclear whether the contractor needs to describe a detailed casual link between the extra costs or the extension of time and the employer risk event. The meaning of the civil requirement of a causal link is not clear. The court, rather than to decide what the requirement of casual link further means, usually decides whether there is a casual link by the evidence. Thus, there are numerous indications that a court will determine whether there is a casual link or not by the evidence. Furthermore, there are probably openings for evidence alleviation when the contractor has to prove the alleged casual link.},
  author       = {Eckerman, Felicia},
  keyword      = {Processrätt,Entreprenadrätt,Global claim,Skadeståndsrätt,Avtalsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Processföringsmetoden global claim - särskilt i entreprenadtvister},
  year         = {2016},
}