Advanced

Klandergrunden handläggningsfel – en för parterna svårligen förutsebar bestämmelse? – En studie av innehållet i 34 § 1 st. 7 p. lagen om skiljeförfarande samt en utblick mot grova rättegångsfel i civilprocessen

Dafnäs, Klara LU (2019) JURM02 20191
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Skiljeförfarande som tvistlösningsform har blivit allt vanligare mellan kommersiella parter, till stor del på grund av dess effektivitet och slutgiltighet. Skiljedomar kan enbart upphävas enligt ett begränsat antal grunder i 34 § 1 st. lag (1999:166) om skiljeförfarande (LSF). En av dessa klandergrunder kan åberopas om skiljenämnden begått ett handläggningsfel utan parts vållande som sannolikt påverkat utgången i målet, vilket anges i 34 § 1 st. 7 p. LSF. Denna bestämmelse används ofta i klandermål, men har mycket sällan lett till att en skiljedom upphävts. Bestämmelsens omfattning är även omdiskuterad i doktrin.

Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka klandergrunden handläggningsfel. För att uppnå uppsatsens syfte besvaras tre... (More)
Skiljeförfarande som tvistlösningsform har blivit allt vanligare mellan kommersiella parter, till stor del på grund av dess effektivitet och slutgiltighet. Skiljedomar kan enbart upphävas enligt ett begränsat antal grunder i 34 § 1 st. lag (1999:166) om skiljeförfarande (LSF). En av dessa klandergrunder kan åberopas om skiljenämnden begått ett handläggningsfel utan parts vållande som sannolikt påverkat utgången i målet, vilket anges i 34 § 1 st. 7 p. LSF. Denna bestämmelse används ofta i klandermål, men har mycket sällan lett till att en skiljedom upphävts. Bestämmelsens omfattning är även omdiskuterad i doktrin.

Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka klandergrunden handläggningsfel. För att uppnå uppsatsens syfte besvaras tre frågeställningar. Den första är när en part kan klandra en skiljedom på grund av handläggningsfel. Fokus ligger på fyra särskilda fall: när parts yrkanden eller åberopanden inte behandlas, när parts uttalande missförstås, när part inte i tillräcklig mån får utföra sin talan samt när parts bevisning avvisas. Den andra frågeställningen är i vilken utsträckning prejudikat om klagan över domvilla i 59 kap. 1 § 1 st. 4 p. rättegångsbalken (RB) kan användas som tolkningsunderlag för att förstå omfattningen av handläggningsfel. Den tredje frågeställningen är huruvida bestämmelsen om handläggningsfel tillgodoser de rättighetsgarantier som parterna ska tillförsäkras i ett skiljeförfarande. Metoden som används är främst rättsdogmatisk med inslag av en rättsanalytisk metod.

Effektivitet, slutgiltighet och grundläggande rättssäkerhetsgarantier är centrala aspekter hos både skiljeförfarande och civilprocess. LSF präglas av partsautonomi och har jämfört med RB få förfaranderegler. Rättssäkerhetsgarantierna anses allmänt vara större i civilprocessen än i skiljeförfarande och tvärtom med effektivitet och slutgiltighet, mot bakgrund av de olika syftena med processerna.

Klanderrätten i LSF är utformad för att tillförsäkra parter vissa rättssäkerhetsgarantier. Regelsystemet om klander, och framförallt bestämmelsen om handläggningsfel, är dock restriktivt utformat för att målsättningarna med skiljeförfarande i form av effektivitet och slutgiltighet inte ska förtas. Skiljenämnds handläggningsfel föreligger exempelvis om skiljedomen helt saknar domskäl eller om skiljenämnden brustit mot sin egen förfaranderegel så att part inte fått möjlighet att i tillräcklig mån utforma sin talan. Grova rättegångsfel i RB föreligger exempelvis om en part inte har fått uttala sig om relevant bevisning i målet. Domvilloprejudikat kan inte kategoriskt användas som tolkningsunderlag till vad som ska utgöra handläggningsfel. I vissa situationer, som exempelvis när inget underlag i förarbeten eller praxis finns inom skiljemannarätten, kan det dock vara av relevans att beakta praxis rörande domvilla.

Rättsläget angående vad som ska utgöra handläggningsfel är sammanfattningsvis oklart. I doktrin tycks omfattningen av bestämmelsen vara vidsträckt, men detta begränsas i praktiken av vållandebedömningen, bedömningen huruvida felet inverkat på utgången i målet samt preklusionsregeln. Domstolarna tycks vidare prioritera slutgiltighet framför rättssäkerhetsgarantier när det kommer till bedömningar i klandermål om handläggningsfel. Genom nedslag i de fyra särskilda situationerna är det svårt att få någon konkret vägledning vare sig från hovrätternas klanderprövning eller från domvilloprejudikat, eftersom resonemangen i domskälen är knapphändiga. Slutligen behövs fler tydliggöranden, lämpligen genom mer utförlig argumentation i praxis. I nuläget är det svårt för parterna att förutse tillämpningen av bestämmelsen om handläggningsfel, vilket varken är önskvärt eller rättssäkert. (Less)
Abstract
Commercial arbitration has become increasingly common in Sweden mostly due to its effectiveness and finality as a mechanism for solving disputes. However, according to the Swedish Arbitration Act of 1999 (SAA), arbitration awards can only be set aside in a limited number of situations. One of the situations when it is possible to set aside an award is when an arbitration tribunal has made a procedural mistake not attributable to the party, that can reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the arbitration award, 34th § 1st Line 7th Point of the SAA. This rule is often referred to when a party makes a protest action against an arbitration award but has rarely led to approval by the Court of Appeal and the scope of the rule has... (More)
Commercial arbitration has become increasingly common in Sweden mostly due to its effectiveness and finality as a mechanism for solving disputes. However, according to the Swedish Arbitration Act of 1999 (SAA), arbitration awards can only be set aside in a limited number of situations. One of the situations when it is possible to set aside an award is when an arbitration tribunal has made a procedural mistake not attributable to the party, that can reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the arbitration award, 34th § 1st Line 7th Point of the SAA. This rule is often referred to when a party makes a protest action against an arbitration award but has rarely led to approval by the Court of Appeal and the scope of the rule has been frequently discussed in legal doctrine.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the rule for setting aside an arbitration award due to procedural mistakes. The first question is which situations that can lead to a setting aside due to the rule, especially when a party’s demands or referring hasn’t been tried or at least not seen to be tried in the grounds for the award, when a party’s confession or attestation has been misunderstood, when a party hasn’t had adequate opportunity to present its case and finally when a party has been denied the opportunity to lay forth evidence. The second question is whether precedents of grave procedural error of the 59th Chapter 1st § 1st Line 4th Point of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure can be used as guidelines to establish the scope of the arbitration rule. The third question is whether procedural safeguards in arbitration are sufficiently catered for in the application of the rule. The method used to achieve the purpose of the paper is a legal-judicial one.

Effectiveness, finality and procedural guarantees are main features of arbitration as well as civil procedure. The Code of Judicial Procedure contains an extensive number of procedural rules, whereas the SAA only has a few to enable the parties to tailor the process to their liking. Procedural guarantees are considered to be of a greater importance in civil procedure than in arbitration and vice versa with effectiveness and finality due to the different objectives of the procedures. This affects a comparison between the two systems.

The system of protest under the SAA is tailored to guarantee certain procedural safeguards, but is nevertheless restrictive as not to compromise the effectiveness and finality of the process. Procedural mistakes as in the SAA are considered to be at hand if there is a total lack of a written ground for decision or an arbitration tribunal has disregarded its own procedural rules with the result that a party hasn’t been given adequate opportunity to make its case. Grave procedural errors under the Code of Judicial Procedure are considered to be at hand if a party hasn’t been allowed to comment on evidence of relevance in a proceeding or if a court hasn’t judged over all of a party’s claims.

What constitutes a procedural error under the SAA is indefinite. Various situations have been said to fall under its scope in legal doctrine, but in court practice few cases have led to the setting aside of an arbitration award, which is shown through a study of the four specific situations examined in the paper. Furthermore, grave procedural errors can only in certain cases provide guidelines as to the extent of when a procedural mistake in an arbitration proceeding is considered at hand since the two systems have different purposes overall. In some cases, there is no reason guidance couldn’t be sought in precedents concerning grave procedural errors. When it comes to procedural safeguards, the Courts of Appeal seem to prioritize the finality of an arbitration award rather than the parties’ needs of procedural safeguards. In conclusion, more clarifications from the Supreme Court are needed as to when a procedural mistake has occurred to achieve the purpose of the arbitration system in terms of constituting an effective and final proceeding. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Dafnäs, Klara LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Setting aside an Arbitral Award due to a Procedural Mistake by the Arbitration Tribunal – A study of the 34th § 1st Line 7th Point of the Swedish Arbitration Act
course
JURM02 20191
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Civilprocessrätt, Procedural law, Skiljedomsrätt, Klanderrätt, Rättsvetenskap
language
Swedish
id
8980400
date added to LUP
2019-06-27 12:22:40
date last changed
2019-06-27 12:22:40
@misc{8980400,
  abstract     = {Commercial arbitration has become increasingly common in Sweden mostly due to its effectiveness and finality as a mechanism for solving disputes. However, according to the Swedish Arbitration Act of 1999 (SAA), arbitration awards can only be set aside in a limited number of situations. One of the situations when it is possible to set aside an award is when an arbitration tribunal has made a procedural mistake not attributable to the party, that can reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the arbitration award, 34th § 1st Line 7th Point of the SAA. This rule is often referred to when a party makes a protest action against an arbitration award but has rarely led to approval by the Court of Appeal and the scope of the rule has been frequently discussed in legal doctrine. 

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the rule for setting aside an arbitration award due to procedural mistakes. The first question is which situations that can lead to a setting aside due to the rule, especially when a party’s demands or referring hasn’t been tried or at least not seen to be tried in the grounds for the award, when a party’s confession or attestation has been misunderstood, when a party hasn’t had adequate opportunity to present its case and finally when a party has been denied the opportunity to lay forth evidence. The second question is whether precedents of grave procedural error of the 59th Chapter 1st § 1st Line 4th Point of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure can be used as guidelines to establish the scope of the arbitration rule. The third question is whether procedural safeguards in arbitration are sufficiently catered for in the application of the rule. The method used to achieve the purpose of the paper is a legal-judicial one. 

Effectiveness, finality and procedural guarantees are main features of arbitration as well as civil procedure. The Code of Judicial Procedure contains an extensive number of procedural rules, whereas the SAA only has a few to enable the parties to tailor the process to their liking. Procedural guarantees are considered to be of a greater importance in civil procedure than in arbitration and vice versa with effectiveness and finality due to the different objectives of the procedures. This affects a comparison between the two systems. 

The system of protest under the SAA is tailored to guarantee certain procedural safeguards, but is nevertheless restrictive as not to compromise the effectiveness and finality of the process. Procedural mistakes as in the SAA are considered to be at hand if there is a total lack of a written ground for decision or an arbitration tribunal has disregarded its own procedural rules with the result that a party hasn’t been given adequate opportunity to make its case. Grave procedural errors under the Code of Judicial Procedure are considered to be at hand if a party hasn’t been allowed to comment on evidence of relevance in a proceeding or if a court hasn’t judged over all of a party’s claims. 

What constitutes a procedural error under the SAA is indefinite. Various situations have been said to fall under its scope in legal doctrine, but in court practice few cases have led to the setting aside of an arbitration award, which is shown through a study of the four specific situations examined in the paper. Furthermore, grave procedural errors can only in certain cases provide guidelines as to the extent of when a procedural mistake in an arbitration proceeding is considered at hand since the two systems have different purposes overall. In some cases, there is no reason guidance couldn’t be sought in precedents concerning grave procedural errors. When it comes to procedural safeguards, the Courts of Appeal seem to prioritize the finality of an arbitration award rather than the parties’ needs of procedural safeguards. In conclusion, more clarifications from the Supreme Court are needed as to when a procedural mistake has occurred to achieve the purpose of the arbitration system in terms of constituting an effective and final proceeding.},
  author       = {Dafnäs, Klara},
  keyword      = {Civilprocessrätt,Procedural law,Skiljedomsrätt,Klanderrätt,Rättsvetenskap},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Klandergrunden handläggningsfel – en för parterna svårligen förutsebar bestämmelse? – En studie av innehållet i 34 § 1 st. 7 p. lagen om skiljeförfarande samt en utblick mot grova rättegångsfel i civilprocessen},
  year         = {2019},
}