Belgorfallet - konsekvenser för skiljeavtalets omfattning
(2020) LAGF03 20201Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Högsta domstolen meddelade i mars 2019 dom i Belgorfallet vilken kommit att påverka skiljeavtalets omfattning med avseende på hur rättsförhållande och anknytningsdoktrinen ska tolkas. Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka hur Högsta domstolens bedömning i Belgorfallet förhåller sig till den tidigare rådande rättsuppfattningen och för detta ändamål används rättsdogmatisk metod med fokus på praxis.
För att en skiljenämnd ska vara behörig att pröva framtida tvister mellan parter måste tvisten härröra ur ett specifikt rättsförhållande knutet till en skiljeklausul. Högsta domstolen har i tidigare praxis givit rättsförhållande en restriktiv tolkning och ansett att ankytningsdoktrinen endast undantagsvis ska tillämpas. I Belgorfallet stadgas... (More) - Högsta domstolen meddelade i mars 2019 dom i Belgorfallet vilken kommit att påverka skiljeavtalets omfattning med avseende på hur rättsförhållande och anknytningsdoktrinen ska tolkas. Syftet med uppsatsen är att undersöka hur Högsta domstolens bedömning i Belgorfallet förhåller sig till den tidigare rådande rättsuppfattningen och för detta ändamål används rättsdogmatisk metod med fokus på praxis.
För att en skiljenämnd ska vara behörig att pröva framtida tvister mellan parter måste tvisten härröra ur ett specifikt rättsförhållande knutet till en skiljeklausul. Högsta domstolen har i tidigare praxis givit rättsförhållande en restriktiv tolkning och ansett att ankytningsdoktrinen endast undantagsvis ska tillämpas. I Belgorfallet stadgas att när partsavsikten är oklar ska den anses vara att parterna vill få hela tvisten prövad inom ramen för ett skiljeförfarande samt att domstolen vid en klanderprocess ska utgå från att skiljenämnden gjort en korrekt prövning av sin behörighet.
En slutsats är att Högsta domstolen genom Belgorfallet givit skiljeavtalet en extensiv snarare än en restriktiv tillämpning. Det är dock oklart om den extensiva tolkningen endast ska gälla när skiljenämnden prövar sin behörighet och i klanderprocesser eller även i andra situationer. Ytterligare en slutsats är att avgörandet i Belgorfallet skapar osäkerhet kring vad som gäller angående skiljeavtalets omfattning och enligt min uppfattning är domen dåligt motiverad på flera sätt. (Less) - Abstract
- In March 2019, the Swedish Supreme Court passed judgment on the Belgor case. The judgment has come to affect how legal relationship and the doctrine of connection (“anknytningsdoktrinen”) are to be interpreted, and therefore also the extent of the arbitration agreement. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Swedish Supreme Court’s argumentation in the Belgor case relates to the prevailing legal opinion and for this purpose legal dogmatic method is used with a focus on case law.
For an arbitration board to have jurisdiction over disputes, the dispute must derive from a specific legal relationship connected to an arbitration clause. In previous case law, The Swedish Supreme Court has given legal relationship a restrictive... (More) - In March 2019, the Swedish Supreme Court passed judgment on the Belgor case. The judgment has come to affect how legal relationship and the doctrine of connection (“anknytningsdoktrinen”) are to be interpreted, and therefore also the extent of the arbitration agreement. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Swedish Supreme Court’s argumentation in the Belgor case relates to the prevailing legal opinion and for this purpose legal dogmatic method is used with a focus on case law.
For an arbitration board to have jurisdiction over disputes, the dispute must derive from a specific legal relationship connected to an arbitration clause. In previous case law, The Swedish Supreme Court has given legal relationship a restrictive interpretation and considered that the doctrine of connection should not be applicable unless the circumstances are special. In the Belgor case the court states that they consider the parties' intentions to be that the arbitration board has jurisdiction over the dispute in its entirety if the parties' intentions are unclear. Thereafter, the Swedish Supreme Court announced that a court in a potential nullity suit shall assume that the arbitration board has done a correct assessment of their jurisdiction.
One conclusion is that the Swedish Supreme Court as a result of the Belgor case has given the arbitration agreement an extensive rather than restrictive interpretation. However, it is unclear if the extensive interpretation shall apply only in a nullity suit and when the arbitration board assesses their jurisdiction or also in other situations. Another conclusion is that the argumentation in Belgor leads to uncertainty regarding the arbitration agreements’ extent. In several aspects, the judgment is not sufficiently motivated. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9010340
- author
- Lindelöf, Linn LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20201
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Processrätt, Skiljeförfarande, Anknytningsdoktrinen, Belgor
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9010340
- date added to LUP
- 2020-09-21 13:45:40
- date last changed
- 2020-09-21 13:45:40
@misc{9010340,
abstract = {{In March 2019, the Swedish Supreme Court passed judgment on the Belgor case. The judgment has come to affect how legal relationship and the doctrine of connection (“anknytningsdoktrinen”) are to be interpreted, and therefore also the extent of the arbitration agreement. The purpose of this paper is to examine how the Swedish Supreme Court’s argumentation in the Belgor case relates to the prevailing legal opinion and for this purpose legal dogmatic method is used with a focus on case law.
For an arbitration board to have jurisdiction over disputes, the dispute must derive from a specific legal relationship connected to an arbitration clause. In previous case law, The Swedish Supreme Court has given legal relationship a restrictive interpretation and considered that the doctrine of connection should not be applicable unless the circumstances are special. In the Belgor case the court states that they consider the parties' intentions to be that the arbitration board has jurisdiction over the dispute in its entirety if the parties' intentions are unclear. Thereafter, the Swedish Supreme Court announced that a court in a potential nullity suit shall assume that the arbitration board has done a correct assessment of their jurisdiction.
One conclusion is that the Swedish Supreme Court as a result of the Belgor case has given the arbitration agreement an extensive rather than restrictive interpretation. However, it is unclear if the extensive interpretation shall apply only in a nullity suit and when the arbitration board assesses their jurisdiction or also in other situations. Another conclusion is that the argumentation in Belgor leads to uncertainty regarding the arbitration agreements’ extent. In several aspects, the judgment is not sufficiently motivated.}},
author = {{Lindelöf, Linn}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Belgorfallet - konsekvenser för skiljeavtalets omfattning}},
year = {{2020}},
}