Advanced

Avgjort en gång för alla? – slutliga regleringar i ljuset av NJA 2017 s. 659

Holst Westrum, Thea LU (2018) LAGF03 20182
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Det är vanligt förekommande att tvistande parter kommer överens och beslutar att inte gå vidare med sin konflikt. Ibland resulterar detta i en stadfästelse av ett förlikningsavtal. För att domstolen ska kunna stadfästa en förlikning ska avtalet innebära att parterna förliks i just den sak de tvistat om. Denna sak vinner rättskraft i och med den lagakraftvunna stadfästelse-domen. Rättskraften innebär att ingen av parterna kan ta upp frågan på nytt inom ramen för domstolsväsendet då saken är avgjord en gång för alla. För det fall förlikningsavtalet innehåller andra saker som ligger utanför ramen för tvistemålet uppstår frågan vad som gäller i rättskraftshänseende. Högsta instans har ansett att dessa så kallade supplerande moment kan... (More)
Det är vanligt förekommande att tvistande parter kommer överens och beslutar att inte gå vidare med sin konflikt. Ibland resulterar detta i en stadfästelse av ett förlikningsavtal. För att domstolen ska kunna stadfästa en förlikning ska avtalet innebära att parterna förliks i just den sak de tvistat om. Denna sak vinner rättskraft i och med den lagakraftvunna stadfästelse-domen. Rättskraften innebär att ingen av parterna kan ta upp frågan på nytt inom ramen för domstolsväsendet då saken är avgjord en gång för alla. För det fall förlikningsavtalet innehåller andra saker som ligger utanför ramen för tvistemålet uppstår frågan vad som gäller i rättskraftshänseende. Högsta instans har ansett att dessa så kallade supplerande moment kan stadfästas och även träffas av stadfästelsedomens rättskraft.

Ett frekvent använt supplerande moment är en klausul som syftar till att slutligt reglera parternas mellanhavanden. Klausulen har kritiserats i doktrinen för att vara alltför allmän och vag för att kunna ha någon processuell betydelse. Häromåret avgjorde Högsta domstolen ett mål där denna typ av klausul bedömdes. I domen bekräftade HD tidigare praxis – det vill säga möjligheten för supplerande moment att vinna rättskraft. HD underkände däremot den aktuella slutregleringsklausulen i detta avseende då det inte ansågs genom domen stå klart att det supplerande momentet förlikt den sak som käranden förde talan om i den andra processen. I arbetet diskuteras huruvida dessa klausuler bör leda till den önskade effekten att sätta stopp för framtida tvister samt vad HD egentligen säger i det hittills enda prejudicerande rättsfall där frågan aktualiserats. (Less)
Abstract
It is not unusual for disputing parties to reach a common understanding and choose not to pursue their conflict further. This sometimes leads to a court delivering a judgment confirming a settlement agreement between the parties. For the court to be able to confirm the settlement the parties have to settle on the very matter that was the object of their dispute. As a result of the judgment becoming legally binding, the disputed matter gains legal force. The effect of the matter gaining legal force is that none of the parties can bring the matter in front of a court again – the matter is settled once and for all. Should the settlement agreement contain other matters outside the scope of the agreement, the question arises whether those... (More)
It is not unusual for disputing parties to reach a common understanding and choose not to pursue their conflict further. This sometimes leads to a court delivering a judgment confirming a settlement agreement between the parties. For the court to be able to confirm the settlement the parties have to settle on the very matter that was the object of their dispute. As a result of the judgment becoming legally binding, the disputed matter gains legal force. The effect of the matter gaining legal force is that none of the parties can bring the matter in front of a court again – the matter is settled once and for all. Should the settlement agreement contain other matters outside the scope of the agreement, the question arises whether those matters have the capacity to gain legal force. The highest court allows for these so-called supplementary elements to be confirmed and to be covered by the judgment’s legal force.

One frequently used supplementary element is a clause that aims to fully and finally settle the parties’ differences. The clause has been criticized in the legal literature for being too general and vague to have any procedural significance. A year or so ago The Supreme Court tried a case where a clause of this type was to be assessed. The judgment confirmed earlier case law, i.e. the possibility for supplementary elements to gain legal force. The court did however not approve of the clause in question in this respect, since it was not clear from the judgment that the supplementary element had settled the matter in question in the second dispute. In this essay it is discussed whether these clauses should lead to the desired effect of putting a stop to future disputes. Also discussed is the meaning of The Supreme Court’s reasoning in the only precedent on the issue as of yet. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Holst Westrum, Thea LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20182
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
processrätt, civilrätt, förlikningsavtal, stadfästelse, rättskraft, supplerande moment, slutregleringsklausul, NJA 2017 s. 659
language
Swedish
id
8965648
date added to LUP
2019-03-13 12:11:49
date last changed
2019-03-13 12:11:49
@misc{8965648,
  abstract     = {It is not unusual for disputing parties to reach a common understanding and choose not to pursue their conflict further. This sometimes leads to a court delivering a judgment confirming a settlement agreement between the parties. For the court to be able to confirm the settlement the parties have to settle on the very matter that was the object of their dispute. As a result of the judgment becoming legally binding, the disputed matter gains legal force. The effect of the matter gaining legal force is that none of the parties can bring the matter in front of a court again – the matter is settled once and for all. Should the settlement agreement contain other matters outside the scope of the agreement, the question arises whether those matters have the capacity to gain legal force. The highest court allows for these so-called supplementary elements to be confirmed and to be covered by the judgment’s legal force.

One frequently used supplementary element is a clause that aims to fully and finally settle the parties’ differences. The clause has been criticized in the legal literature for being too general and vague to have any procedural significance. A year or so ago The Supreme Court tried a case where a clause of this type was to be assessed. The judgment confirmed earlier case law, i.e. the possibility for supplementary elements to gain legal force. The court did however not approve of the clause in question in this respect, since it was not clear from the judgment that the supplementary element had settled the matter in question in the second dispute. In this essay it is discussed whether these clauses should lead to the desired effect of putting a stop to future disputes. Also discussed is the meaning of The Supreme Court’s reasoning in the only precedent on the issue as of yet.},
  author       = {Holst Westrum, Thea},
  keyword      = {processrätt,civilrätt,förlikningsavtal,stadfästelse,rättskraft,supplerande moment,slutregleringsklausul,NJA 2017 s. 659},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Avgjort en gång för alla? – slutliga regleringar i ljuset av NJA 2017 s. 659},
  year         = {2018},
}