Advanced

Tar du notan? - Något om fördelningen av rättegångskostnaderna enligt 18 kap. 4 § RB och dess påverkan på processen

Hallén, Axel LU (2016) LAGF03 20162
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Rättegångskostnadernas fördelning i tvistemål regleras sedan 1948 i 18 kap. RB. Av 18 kap. 4 § framgår hur fördelningen ska ske då part har flera yrkanden, eller då part endast har ett yrkande, men talan endast delvis bifalls. Innan RB:s införande reglerades fördelningen av rättegångskostnaderna i 21 kap. ÄRB. Bägge lagarna bygger på samma huvudregel, att tappande part ska betala vinnande parts rättegångskostnad. För mer komplexa situationer, likt den som idag regleras i 18 kap. 4 §, saknade emellertid ÄRB reglering. Dessutom skilde sig syftet med bestämmelserna i de båda lagarna; ÄRB behandlade rättegångskostnaderna som ett skadestånd, medan RB behandlar dessa som medel för att uppfylla en parts rättsskydd. Genom RB infördes således dels... (More)
Rättegångskostnadernas fördelning i tvistemål regleras sedan 1948 i 18 kap. RB. Av 18 kap. 4 § framgår hur fördelningen ska ske då part har flera yrkanden, eller då part endast har ett yrkande, men talan endast delvis bifalls. Innan RB:s införande reglerades fördelningen av rättegångskostnaderna i 21 kap. ÄRB. Bägge lagarna bygger på samma huvudregel, att tappande part ska betala vinnande parts rättegångskostnad. För mer komplexa situationer, likt den som idag regleras i 18 kap. 4 §, saknade emellertid ÄRB reglering. Dessutom skilde sig syftet med bestämmelserna i de båda lagarna; ÄRB behandlade rättegångskostnaderna som ett skadestånd, medan RB behandlar dessa som medel för att uppfylla en parts rättsskydd. Genom RB infördes således dels en ny reglering, dels ett helt nytt syfte.

Syftet med uppsatsen är att behandla hur bestämmelsen i 18 kap. 4 § tillämpas idag och hur detta kan antas påverka parterna då de processar i domstol. Uppsatsen försöker även utvärdera denna påverkan mot bakgrund av regleringens syfte. För att arbetets syfte ska uppfyllas har tre frågeställningar använts. Metoden vid arbetet har varierat; en rättsdogmatisk metod har använts för att beskriva rättsläget och dess bakgrund, medan en metod bestående av kvalificerade antaganden har använts då påverkan på processen behandlats. Då denna påverkan utvärderats mot regleringens syfte har den rättsdogmatiska metoden till viss del kompletterats med en kritisk metod.

Under 1970- och 1980-talen kom flera på området centrala avgöranden. År 1973 dömde HD i plenum att det avgörande för rättegångskostnadernas fördelning skulle vara utgången i målet, något som senare kommit att kallas proportionalitetsprincipen. År 1978 meddelade HD ytterligare ett avgörande, i vilket den part som vunnit huvudfrågan premierades, något som senare kommit att kallas tyngdpunktsprincipen. Rättsläget har sedan dess dominerats av dessa principer och deras inbördes förhållandet.

Samtidigt kom flera författare i doktrin att intressera sig för hur rättegångskostnaderna skulle fördelas för att fördelningen skulle följa motiven bakom RB. De har kommit att förorda proportionalitetsprincipen, eftersom de menat att tyngdpunktsprincipen ofta innebär ett otillbörligt gynnande av käranden. I doktrin har det även tydliggjorts hur proportionalitetsprincipen ska användas av domstolarna.

Uppsatsen presenterar flera slutsatser. Det är tydligt att rättsläget avseende rättegångskostnadernas fördelning är oklart, och att detta kan antas ha en inverkan på parternas processföring, t.ex. på vilket sätt käranden lägger upp sin talan. Författaren diskuterar även det stöd som proportionalitetsprincipen kommit att få i praxis och doktrin, samt presenterar, ur ett perspektiv av de lege ferenda, argument för en bredare användning av tyngdpunktsprincipen. (Less)
Abstract
The distribution of costs in civil proceedings are, since 1948, governed by Chapter 18 of RB. Paragraph 4 regulates how the distribution should be made when the case of one of the parties consists of several claims, or when one of the parties only have a single claim, but the case is only partially upheld by the court. Before the introduction of RB, the allocation of costs were in Chapter 21 of ÄRB. Both laws are based on the same general rule, that the unsuccessful party are to pay the costs of the successful party. For situations of greater complexity however, like the one currently governed by § 4 of Chapter 18 of RB, ÄRB lacked regulations. Moreover, the purpose of the distribution of costs differs between the two laws; ÄRB treated... (More)
The distribution of costs in civil proceedings are, since 1948, governed by Chapter 18 of RB. Paragraph 4 regulates how the distribution should be made when the case of one of the parties consists of several claims, or when one of the parties only have a single claim, but the case is only partially upheld by the court. Before the introduction of RB, the allocation of costs were in Chapter 21 of ÄRB. Both laws are based on the same general rule, that the unsuccessful party are to pay the costs of the successful party. For situations of greater complexity however, like the one currently governed by § 4 of Chapter 18 of RB, ÄRB lacked regulations. Moreover, the purpose of the distribution of costs differs between the two laws; ÄRB treated costs as a form of damages, while RB treat them as means to satisfy a party's right to justice. Thusly the new RB saw not only the introduction of new provisions, but also that of a brand new underlying purpose.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the provision in § 4 of Chapter 18 of RB is to be used today, and how this interpretation effects the parties in the court proceedings. The paper also aims to assess the impact on the parties in relation to the purpose of the regulation. In order for the paper to be successful in its purpose, three questions have been used. The method with which the work has been conducted has varied: a legal dogmatic method has been used to describe the legal situation and its background, while a method consisting of qualified assumptions has been used with regard to the impact the regulation may have on the legal process. A method consisting of critical study has complemented the legal dogmatic method when evaluating the impact on the parties in relation to the purpose of the regulation.

The nineteen-seventies and -eighties saw the ruling of several important precedents in this field of law. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in plenum, that the outcome in the case ought to be decisive for the distribution of costs, a rule which later came to be called the principle of proportionality. In a ruling in 1978 the Court added another principle, the principle of main issue, according to which the party winning the main issue of the case was to be rewarded his costs of trial. The legal situation has since been dominated by these two principles and how they relate to each other.

During the same period of time, several scholars took interest in how the costs should be allocated in order for the distribution to be in accordance with the motives behind RB. They came to advocate the principle of proportionality, while they argued that the principle of main issue often meant that the plaintiffs were unduly favoured. Scholars also clarified how the courts were to applicate the principle of proportionality.

The paper draws several conclusions. It is clear that the legal situation regarding the distribution of costs is uncertain, and that this is likely to have an impact on the legal process, e.g. on how the plaintiff choose to construct his case. The author also discusses the special status that the principle of proportionality has come to receive in precedents and by legal scholars. Lastly, the paper presents, from a perspective of de lege ferenda, a case for a wider use of the principle of main issue. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Hallén, Axel LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20162
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Processrätt, rättegångskostnader
language
Swedish
id
8897188
date added to LUP
2017-02-08 11:28:59
date last changed
2017-02-08 11:28:59
@misc{8897188,
  abstract     = {The distribution of costs in civil proceedings are, since 1948, governed by Chapter 18 of RB. Paragraph 4 regulates how the distribution should be made when the case of one of the parties consists of several claims, or when one of the parties only have a single claim, but the case is only partially upheld by the court. Before the introduction of RB, the allocation of costs were in Chapter 21 of ÄRB. Both laws are based on the same general rule, that the unsuccessful party are to pay the costs of the successful party. For situations of greater complexity however, like the one currently governed by § 4 of Chapter 18 of RB, ÄRB lacked regulations. Moreover, the purpose of the distribution of costs differs between the two laws; ÄRB treated costs as a form of damages, while RB treat them as means to satisfy a party's right to justice. Thusly the new RB saw not only the introduction of new provisions, but also that of a brand new underlying purpose.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how the provision in § 4 of Chapter 18 of RB is to be used today, and how this interpretation effects the parties in the court proceedings. The paper also aims to assess the impact on the parties in relation to the purpose of the regulation. In order for the paper to be successful in its purpose, three questions have been used. The method with which the work has been conducted has varied: a legal dogmatic method has been used to describe the legal situation and its background, while a method consisting of qualified assumptions has been used with regard to the impact the regulation may have on the legal process. A method consisting of critical study has complemented the legal dogmatic method when evaluating the impact on the parties in relation to the purpose of the regulation.

The nineteen-seventies and -eighties saw the ruling of several important precedents in this field of law. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled in plenum, that the outcome in the case ought to be decisive for the distribution of costs, a rule which later came to be called the principle of proportionality. In a ruling in 1978 the Court added another principle, the principle of main issue, according to which the party winning the main issue of the case was to be rewarded his costs of trial. The legal situation has since been dominated by these two principles and how they relate to each other.

During the same period of time, several scholars took interest in how the costs should be allocated in order for the distribution to be in accordance with the motives behind RB. They came to advocate the principle of proportionality, while they argued that the principle of main issue often meant that the plaintiffs were unduly favoured. Scholars also clarified how the courts were to applicate the principle of proportionality.

The paper draws several conclusions. It is clear that the legal situation regarding the distribution of costs is uncertain, and that this is likely to have an impact on the legal process, e.g. on how the plaintiff choose to construct his case. The author also discusses the special status that the principle of proportionality has come to receive in precedents and by legal scholars. Lastly, the paper presents, from a perspective of de lege ferenda, a case for a wider use of the principle of main issue.},
  author       = {Hallén, Axel},
  keyword      = {Processrätt,rättegångskostnader},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Tar du notan? - Något om fördelningen av rättegångskostnaderna enligt 18 kap. 4 § RB och dess påverkan på processen},
  year         = {2016},
}