Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Revisorers skadeståndsansvar enligt ABL, föremål för begränsning? - En studie om den begränsande verkan av normskyddsläran, befogad tillit och adekvat kausalitet

Ahlberg, Filip LU (2021) HARH13 20211
Department of Business Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Revisorers skadeståndsansvar är en fråga som varit föremål för diskussion under de senaste två decennierna. Frågan har också varit föremål för rättsfall vid flera tillfällen där de mest framstående rättegångarna varit Prosolvia-målet 2013 och BDO-målet 2014. Dessa mål skulle komma att forma framtiden för rättsläget för revisorers skadeståndsansvar och möjligheten att begränsa detta ansvar, vilket utgör huvudämnet för denna studie.
Närmare bestämt rör denna studie möjligheten att begränsa revisorers skadeståndsansvar genom de tre principerna: normskyddslära, befogad tillit och adekvat kausalitet.
Normskyddsläran utgår från att endast de rättssubjekt som den överträdda lagen ämnar skydda kan åberopa lagen för skadeståndsanspråk. Denna... (More)
Revisorers skadeståndsansvar är en fråga som varit föremål för diskussion under de senaste två decennierna. Frågan har också varit föremål för rättsfall vid flera tillfällen där de mest framstående rättegångarna varit Prosolvia-målet 2013 och BDO-målet 2014. Dessa mål skulle komma att forma framtiden för rättsläget för revisorers skadeståndsansvar och möjligheten att begränsa detta ansvar, vilket utgör huvudämnet för denna studie.
Närmare bestämt rör denna studie möjligheten att begränsa revisorers skadeståndsansvar genom de tre principerna: normskyddslära, befogad tillit och adekvat kausalitet.
Normskyddsläran utgår från att endast de rättssubjekt som den överträdda lagen ämnar skydda kan åberopa lagen för skadeståndsanspråk. Denna fråga var viktig i de tidigare nämnda rättsfallen Prosolvia- och BDO-målet. I BDO-målet fastställde Högsta Domstolen principen som en möjlig begränsning av skadeståndsansvaret. Detta har senare aktualiserats i domstolsärenden som exempelvis NJA 2017 s. 1101.
Principen om befogad tillit utgår från att den skadelidande verkligen måste ha förlitat sig på den informationen i den berörda årsredovisningen för att skadeståndsansvar ska kunna aktualiseras. Denna princip undersöktes inte i Prosolvia-målet men lyftes i BDO-målet. Högsta Domstolen gjorde i BDO-målet gällande att kravet för att befogad tillit ska kunna aktualiseras måste ställas högt. Detta stärktes också genom Högsta Domstolens uttalande att tilliten som fästs för den aktuella årsredovisningen måste vara en väsentlig del av beslutsunderlaget för att befogad tillit ska föreligga.
Principen om adekvat kausalitet har varit föremål för stor utveckling under tidsperioden som studien sträcker sig över. I de tidigare avgörandena från Högsta Domstolen som diskuteras i studien fastställdes adekvat kausalitet med relativ enkelhet (med bakgrund mot principen om befogad tillit) och frågan utreddes relativt kortfattat. Dock var frågan i de ovan nämnda Prosolvia- och BDO-målen mycket mer komplicerad. I Prosolvia-målet tillämpade Hovrätten för Västra Sverige bevislättnad, mot bakgrund av Högsta Domstolens resonemang i det så kallade Landskrona-målet. Denna tillämpning har sedan kritiserats kraftigt i juridisk doktrin på grund av att omständigheterna i Landskrona-målet var mycket annorlunda än i aktiebolagsrättsliga hänseenden. Högsta Domstolen ekade denna kritik i BDO-målet där det slogs fast att situationen i sin helhet var annorlunda och att ingen bevislättnad skulle behövas. Detta omformade landskapet för revisorers skadeståndsansvar och var av stor betydelse för rättsläget i allmänhet. (Less)
Abstract
Auditors’ liability is a question that has been discussed in multitude for the last two decades. The question also has been the subject of trials in accordance with Swedish law on numerous occasions with the most outstanding trials being the Prosolvia case in 2013 and the BDO case in 2014. These trials shaped the future of the Swedish legal situation for auditor’s liability and the possibility of restricting auditors’ liability, which is the main subject for this study. More precisely, this study concerns the possibility of restricting auditors’ liability through three principles in the landscape for Swedish civil liability: the principle of norm protection, the principle of justified trust and the principle of adequate causality.
The... (More)
Auditors’ liability is a question that has been discussed in multitude for the last two decades. The question also has been the subject of trials in accordance with Swedish law on numerous occasions with the most outstanding trials being the Prosolvia case in 2013 and the BDO case in 2014. These trials shaped the future of the Swedish legal situation for auditor’s liability and the possibility of restricting auditors’ liability, which is the main subject for this study. More precisely, this study concerns the possibility of restricting auditors’ liability through three principles in the landscape for Swedish civil liability: the principle of norm protection, the principle of justified trust and the principle of adequate causality.
The principle of norm protection suggests that only the legal entity that the broken law is supposed to protect may invoke the law for the purpose of claiming liability. This question was quite important in the previously mentioned cases of Prosolvia and BDO. The BDO case was particularly important because the Swedish supreme court established the principle as a possible limitation of liability, which has been brought up in later court cases, as in NJA 2017 s. 1101. The principle of justified trust suggests that the injured party must really have relied on the information in a business decision that entailed damage, in order for liability to be actualized. This principle was not examined in the Prosolvia case but was lifted in the BDO trial. The Swedish supreme courts’ ruling on the principle was that the required trust for justified trust to be actualized must be set high. This was also echoed in that the supreme courts’ ruling that for justified trust to exist the trust to the annual report in question must be an essential part of the decision basis. The principle of adequate causality has been the subject of great development during the time period for this study. In the earlier rulings of the Swedish supreme court adequate causality was determined with relative ease (dependent on the principle of justified trust) but in the aforementioned cases, Prosolvia and BDO, the question of causation was much more complicated. In the Prosolvia case the court established a principle that suggested that auditors’ failure to act under the circumstances brought a relief of evidence, against the background of the supreme courts’ reasoning in the so-called Landskrona case. This principle has later been heavily criticized in the legal doctrine due to the fact that the nature of the Landskrona case was much different than the terms of company law. The supreme court echoed these criticisms in the BDO case in which they ruled that the situation was different in its entirety and that no relief of evidence should be necessary. This reshaped the landscape of auditors’ liability and was of great importance for the field in general. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Ahlberg, Filip LU
supervisor
organization
course
HARH13 20211
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Revisor, Skadestånd, Adekvat kausalitet, Normskyddsläran, Befogad tillit, Aktiebolagsrätt, ABL, Prosolvia-målet, BDO-målet.
language
Swedish
id
9052076
date added to LUP
2021-06-14 09:49:52
date last changed
2021-06-14 09:49:52
@misc{9052076,
  abstract     = {{Auditors’ liability is a question that has been discussed in multitude for the last two decades. The question also has been the subject of trials in accordance with Swedish law on numerous occasions with the most outstanding trials being the Prosolvia case in 2013 and the BDO case in 2014. These trials shaped the future of the Swedish legal situation for auditor’s liability and the possibility of restricting auditors’ liability, which is the main subject for this study. More precisely, this study concerns the possibility of restricting auditors’ liability through three principles in the landscape for Swedish civil liability: the principle of norm protection, the principle of justified trust and the principle of adequate causality. 
The principle of norm protection suggests that only the legal entity that the broken law is supposed to protect may invoke the law for the purpose of claiming liability. This question was quite important in the previously mentioned cases of Prosolvia and BDO. The BDO case was particularly important because the Swedish supreme court established the principle as a possible limitation of liability, which has been brought up in later court cases, as in NJA 2017 s. 1101. The principle of justified trust suggests that the injured party must really have relied on the information in a business decision that entailed damage, in order for liability to be actualized. This principle was not examined in the Prosolvia case but was lifted in the BDO trial. The Swedish supreme courts’ ruling on the principle was that the required trust for justified trust to be actualized must be set high. This was also echoed in that the supreme courts’ ruling that for justified trust to exist the trust to the annual report in question must be an essential part of the decision basis. The principle of adequate causality has been the subject of great development during the time period for this study. In the earlier rulings of the Swedish supreme court adequate causality was determined with relative ease (dependent on the principle of justified trust) but in the aforementioned cases, Prosolvia and BDO, the question of causation was much more complicated. In the Prosolvia case the court established a principle that suggested that auditors’ failure to act under the circumstances brought a relief of evidence, against the background of the supreme courts’ reasoning in the so-called Landskrona case. This principle has later been heavily criticized in the legal doctrine due to the fact that the nature of the Landskrona case was much different than the terms of company law. The supreme court echoed these criticisms in the BDO case in which they ruled that the situation was different in its entirety and that no relief of evidence should be necessary. This reshaped the landscape of auditors’ liability and was of great importance for the field in general.}},
  author       = {{Ahlberg, Filip}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Revisorers skadeståndsansvar enligt ABL, föremål för begränsning? - En studie om den begränsande verkan av normskyddsläran, befogad tillit och adekvat kausalitet}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}