Advanced

Är skiljenämnden behörig? - En probleminriktad studie av skiljenämndens tolkning av skiljeklausuler i sammanhängande avtal

Wendleby, Louise LU (2019) JURM02 20191
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
En affärsrelation mellan två kommersiella parter regleras ofta i flera, mer eller mindre sammanhängande avtal. Det kan då hända att bara ett av avtalen har försetts med en skiljeklausul medan övriga avtal saknar skiljeklausuler (eller innehåller oliklydande skiljeklausuler). Om det i framtiden skulle uppstå en tvist som inte grundas direkt på avtalet med skiljeklausul utan istället på något av de andra sammanhängande avtalen, är det oklart under vilka förutsättningar som tvisten omfattas av skiljeklausulen. Frågan hur en skiljenämnd ska gå till väga för att pröva sin egen behörighet i en sådan situation bildar utgångspunkten för denna uppsats.

I uppsatsen fastställs gällande rätt angående skiljenämndens behörighetsprövning vid... (More)
En affärsrelation mellan två kommersiella parter regleras ofta i flera, mer eller mindre sammanhängande avtal. Det kan då hända att bara ett av avtalen har försetts med en skiljeklausul medan övriga avtal saknar skiljeklausuler (eller innehåller oliklydande skiljeklausuler). Om det i framtiden skulle uppstå en tvist som inte grundas direkt på avtalet med skiljeklausul utan istället på något av de andra sammanhängande avtalen, är det oklart under vilka förutsättningar som tvisten omfattas av skiljeklausulen. Frågan hur en skiljenämnd ska gå till väga för att pröva sin egen behörighet i en sådan situation bildar utgångspunkten för denna uppsats.

I uppsatsen fastställs gällande rätt angående skiljenämndens behörighetsprövning vid sammanhängande avtal med tillämpning av en traditionell rättsdogmatisk metod. Rättsläget utreds i förhållande till och tillämpas på tre hypotetiska problemsituationer. Detta gör att utredningen kan beskrivas som probleminriktad.

Efter en redogörelse för grunderna för skiljenämndens behörighetsprövning och tolkning av ett skiljeavtals omfattning, presenteras en metod för skiljenämndens behörighetsprövning vid just sammanhängande avtal. Metoden består av fyra separata steg. Det finns alltså fyra olika möjligheter för en skiljenämnd att med stöd av en skiljeklausul i ett avtal anse sig behörig att pröva en tvist grundad på ett annat därmed sammanhängande avtal.

Av utredningen framgår dock att enbart det faktumet att det finns ett samband mellan två avtal inte är tillräckligt för att en skiljeklausul ska anses omfatta båda avtalen. För att en skiljenämnd ska bli behörig enligt något av metodens steg måste ytterligare omständigheter föreligga. Har det dessutom konstaterats att avtalen är hänförliga till skilda rättsförhållanden kan en skiljeklausul i det ena avtalet endast undantagsvis utsträckas till att omfatta en tvist som grundas på det andra. Detta följer av den tolkning av det s.k. identifieringskravet i 1 § lagen (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande, LSF, som Högsta domstolen gjort i NJA 2010 s. 734 och NJA 2017 s. 226.

Konsekvenserna av gällande rätt granskas sedan utifrån ett partsperspektiv. Ett argument som kan framföras till stöd för gällande rätt (i uppsatsen benämnt rättssäkerhetsargumentet) vägs mot två argument som kan framföras emot gällande rätt (det processekonomiska argumentet och det internationella argumentet). I analysen ifrågasätts om det verkligen är nödvändigt att tolka identifieringskravet i 1 § LSF på det sätt som Högsta domstolen har gjort för att garantera parterna en rimlig nivå av rättssäkerhet. Vidare konstateras att gällande rätt kan leda till processekonomiskt dåliga lösningar genom att sammanhängande tvistefrågor delas upp i skilda fora. Dessutom riskerar rättsläget i synnerhet att medföra negativa konsekvenser för parter i internationella skiljeförfaranden i Sverige.

Mot bakgrund av bristerna i gällande rätt presenteras två förslag på hur Högsta domstolen skulle kunna ändra sin praxis för att bättre tillgodose parternas intressen i skiljeförfarandet. Det argumenteras bl.a. för att Högsta domstolen vid fastställandet av en skiljeklausuls omfattning borde lägga mindre vikt vid identifieringskravet i 1 § LSF. Sammantaget är slutsatsen att en skiljeklausul i ett avtal i fler situationer borde kunna utsträckas till att omfatta en tvist grundad på ett annat därmed sammanhängande avtal. (Less)
Abstract
A business relationship between two commercial parties often consists of multiple contracts that are more or less connected to each other. In such a multi-contract context, it is possible that only one contract includes an arbitration clause while the other contracts lack arbitration clauses (or contain different arbitration clauses). If, in the future, a dispute arises which is not based directly on the contract with the arbitration clause but instead on any of the related contracts, it is uncertain under what circumstances the dispute is covered by the arbitration clause. The question of how an arbitral tribunal should assess its own jurisdiction in such a situation forms the basis for this paper.

The paper establishes the applicable... (More)
A business relationship between two commercial parties often consists of multiple contracts that are more or less connected to each other. In such a multi-contract context, it is possible that only one contract includes an arbitration clause while the other contracts lack arbitration clauses (or contain different arbitration clauses). If, in the future, a dispute arises which is not based directly on the contract with the arbitration clause but instead on any of the related contracts, it is uncertain under what circumstances the dispute is covered by the arbitration clause. The question of how an arbitral tribunal should assess its own jurisdiction in such a situation forms the basis for this paper.

The paper establishes the applicable law regarding the arbitral tribunal's assessment of its own jurisdiction in multi-contract contexts with the application of a traditional “legal dogmatic method”. The legal situation is investigated in relation to, and is applied on, three hypothetical problem cases. In this sense, the investigation can be described as problem-oriented.

Following an account of some general aspects regarding the arbitral tribunal's determination of its own jurisdiction and interpretation of the scope of an arbitration clause, a method is presented for how the arbitral tribunal should assess its jurisdiction specifically in multi-contract contexts. The method consists of four separate steps. Thus, there are four different ways for an arbitral tribunal to, on the basis of an arbitration clause in one contract, decide that it has jurisdiction over a dispute based on another related contract.

However, it is also evident from the investigation that only the fact that there is a connection between two contracts is not sufficient for an arbitration clause to be considered to cover both contracts. In order for an arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction under any of the method's steps, additional requirements must also be met. Furthermore, if it has been ascertained that the contracts constitute different legal relationships, it is only in exceptional cases that an arbitration clause in one of the contracts can be extended to cover a dispute based on the other. This follows from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the so-called identification requirement under Section 1 of the Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116), the Act, in judgments NJA 2010 p. 734 and NJA 2017 p. 226.

The consequences of the established law are then examined from the perspective of the parties. One argument that can be put forward in support of the law (in the paper referred to as the legal certainty argument) is weighed against two arguments that can be raised against the law (the effective dispute resolution argument and the international argument). In the analysis, it is questioned whether it is really necessary to interpret the identification requirement under Section 1 of the Act in the manner done by the Supreme Court in order to guarantee the parties a reasonable level of legal certainty. Moreover, it is shown that an application of the law may lead to the impractical result that related disputes are divided between different forums. Additionally, there is a particular risk that the law affects parties in international arbitration proceedings in Sweden negatively.

In light of the problems with the current legal situation, two proposals are presented on how the Supreme Court could change its established practice to better meet the interests of the parties in the arbitration proceedings. It is argued, inter alia, that the Supreme Court, when determining the scope of an arbitration clause, should give less importance to the identification requirement under Section 1 of the Act. Overall, the conclusion is that it should be possible to extend the scope of an arbitration clause in one contract to a dispute based on another related contract in more situations than the law allows today. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Wendleby, Louise LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Does the arbitral tribunal have jurisdiction? - A study on problems related to the arbitral tribunal's interpretation of arbitration clauses in multi-contract contexts
course
JURM02 20191
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
civilrätt, civilprocessrätt, skiljedomsrätt, skiljeklausul, sammanhängande avtal, skiljeavtalets omfattning, behörighetsprövning, rättsförhållande
language
Swedish
id
8976426
date added to LUP
2019-06-17 14:47:13
date last changed
2019-06-17 14:47:13
@misc{8976426,
  abstract     = {A business relationship between two commercial parties often consists of multiple contracts that are more or less connected to each other. In such a multi-contract context, it is possible that only one contract includes an arbitration clause while the other contracts lack arbitration clauses (or contain different arbitration clauses). If, in the future, a dispute arises which is not based directly on the contract with the arbitration clause but instead on any of the related contracts, it is uncertain under what circumstances the dispute is covered by the arbitration clause. The question of how an arbitral tribunal should assess its own jurisdiction in such a situation forms the basis for this paper. 

The paper establishes the applicable law regarding the arbitral tribunal's assessment of its own jurisdiction in multi-contract contexts with the application of a traditional “legal dogmatic method”. The legal situation is investigated in relation to, and is applied on, three hypothetical problem cases. In this sense, the investigation can be described as problem-oriented. 

Following an account of some general aspects regarding the arbitral tribunal's determination of its own jurisdiction and interpretation of the scope of an arbitration clause, a method is presented for how the arbitral tribunal should assess its jurisdiction specifically in multi-contract contexts. The method consists of four separate steps. Thus, there are four different ways for an arbitral tribunal to, on the basis of an arbitration clause in one contract, decide that it has jurisdiction over a dispute based on another related contract. 

However, it is also evident from the investigation that only the fact that there is a connection between two contracts is not sufficient for an arbitration clause to be considered to cover both contracts. In order for an arbitral tribunal to have jurisdiction under any of the method's steps, additional requirements must also be met. Furthermore, if it has been ascertained that the contracts constitute different legal relationships, it is only in exceptional cases that an arbitration clause in one of the contracts can be extended to cover a dispute based on the other. This follows from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the so-called identification requirement under Section 1 of the Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116), the Act, in judgments NJA 2010 p. 734 and NJA 2017 p. 226. 

The consequences of the established law are then examined from the perspective of the parties. One argument that can be put forward in support of the law (in the paper referred to as the legal certainty argument) is weighed against two arguments that can be raised against the law (the effective dispute resolution argument and the international argument). In the analysis, it is questioned whether it is really necessary to interpret the identification requirement under Section 1 of the Act in the manner done by the Supreme Court in order to guarantee the parties a reasonable level of legal certainty. Moreover, it is shown that an application of the law may lead to the impractical result that related disputes are divided between different forums. Additionally, there is a particular risk that the law affects parties in international arbitration proceedings in Sweden negatively. 

In light of the problems with the current legal situation, two proposals are presented on how the Supreme Court could change its established practice to better meet the interests of the parties in the arbitration proceedings. It is argued, inter alia, that the Supreme Court, when determining the scope of an arbitration clause, should give less importance to the identification requirement under Section 1 of the Act. Overall, the conclusion is that it should be possible to extend the scope of an arbitration clause in one contract to a dispute based on another related contract in more situations than the law allows today.},
  author       = {Wendleby, Louise},
  keyword      = {civilrätt,civilprocessrätt,skiljedomsrätt,skiljeklausul,sammanhängande avtal,skiljeavtalets omfattning,behörighetsprövning,rättsförhållande},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Är skiljenämnden behörig? - En probleminriktad studie av skiljenämndens tolkning av skiljeklausuler i sammanhängande avtal},
  year         = {2019},
}