Varom det tvistas (och lite till). Om rättsverkningarna av supplerande moment i stadfästa förlikningar
(2023) LAGF03 20232Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract (Swedish)
- Domstolarnas uppgift att verka för förlikningar har fått allt större prioritet sedan Rättegångsbalkens införande. När parterna lyckas nå en förlikning i en tvist som är anhängiggjord i domstol kan de välja att begära stadfästelse. Om avtalet reglerar den sak som talan rör ska rätten stadfästa avtalet i en dom. Denna dom får sedan rättskraft och frågan i målet kan därmed inte prövas igen.
För att nå en förlikning är det dock ofta nödvändigt att föra in andra rättsförhållanden mellan parterna, så kallade supplerande moment. På detta sätt kan parterna hitta en ”paketlösning” som löser även andra rättsförhållanden. Möjligheten att föra in supplerande moment på ett sätt som gör att de tar åt sig av domens rättskraft framgår inte direkt av... (More) - Domstolarnas uppgift att verka för förlikningar har fått allt större prioritet sedan Rättegångsbalkens införande. När parterna lyckas nå en förlikning i en tvist som är anhängiggjord i domstol kan de välja att begära stadfästelse. Om avtalet reglerar den sak som talan rör ska rätten stadfästa avtalet i en dom. Denna dom får sedan rättskraft och frågan i målet kan därmed inte prövas igen.
För att nå en förlikning är det dock ofta nödvändigt att föra in andra rättsförhållanden mellan parterna, så kallade supplerande moment. På detta sätt kan parterna hitta en ”paketlösning” som löser även andra rättsförhållanden. Möjligheten att föra in supplerande moment på ett sätt som gör att de tar åt sig av domens rättskraft framgår inte direkt av lagtext. I stället har denna möjlighet vuxit fram genom praxis.
Frågan under vilka förutsättningar supplerande moment kunde få rättskraft var länge obesvarad. I och med NJA 2017 s. 659 klargjordes dock att en förutsättning är att det supplerande momentet framgår tydligt av förlikningsavtalet. I rättsfallet användes en så kallad slutregleringsklausul där parterna förklarade sina samtliga mellanhavanden med anledning av tvisten slutligt reglerade. Denna klausul är vanlig i förlikningsavtal men kunde enligt HD i detta fall inte medföra rättskraft på grund av att den inte var tillräckligt tydlig.
Det finns en diskussion i litteraturen huruvida det finns ytterligare krav utöver det krav som framkommer i NJA 2017 s. 659. Flera rättsvetare har uttalat sig i frågan men något definitivt svar är svårt att utläsa. Även om de resonemang som förs i doktrin inte kan betecknas som gällande rätt kan de likväl påverka den framtida rättsutvecklingen för supplerande moment. Detta visas inte minst av att doktrin i hög grad hänvisats till av Högsta domstolen i de rättsfall som hittills behandlat frågan om supplerande moment. (Less) - Abstract
- The courts’ task of trying to reach a conciliation between parts in a dispute has gained increasing priority since the Swedish Civil procedure law came into force. When parties successfully reach an agreement in a dispute pending in court, they can request ratification. If the agreement addresses the subject matter of the claim, the court will ratify the agreement through a judgment. Through the ratification the matter of the conciliation agreement cannot be re-examined. This effect is called claim preclusion (“res iudicata”).
However, in order for the parties to reach an agreement in the first place it is often necessary to include other legal relations than the subject matter of the case. These other questions are called supplementary... (More) - The courts’ task of trying to reach a conciliation between parts in a dispute has gained increasing priority since the Swedish Civil procedure law came into force. When parties successfully reach an agreement in a dispute pending in court, they can request ratification. If the agreement addresses the subject matter of the claim, the court will ratify the agreement through a judgment. Through the ratification the matter of the conciliation agreement cannot be re-examined. This effect is called claim preclusion (“res iudicata”).
However, in order for the parties to reach an agreement in the first place it is often necessary to include other legal relations than the subject matter of the case. These other questions are called supplementary agreements. The possibility of introducing supplementary agreements in the conciliation agreement present an opportunity for the parties to create a “package solution”. Still, the effect of claim preclusion regarding supplementary agreements is not explicitly stated in the procedural law. Instead, this possibility can be read through case law from the Swedish Supreme Court.
The question of under which conditions supplementary agreements can be precluded in a second dispute remained unanswered for a long time. However, the case of NJA 2017 s. 659 made it clear that the supplementary agreement should be stated in a clear manner in order for it to have a preclusive effect. The case involved a clause between the parties where they declared all their legal matters in relation to the dispute to be finally settled. Although common in conciliation agreements, the Supreme Court concluded that such clause cannot achieve the effect of claim preclusion due to its indistinct scope.
There is a discussion in the legal literature about whether there are more requirements for claim preclusion regarding supplementary agreements beyond those of the case NJA 2017 s. 659. A definitive answer on this question cannot be read through the legal literature. Even though the literature cannot be considered a binding legal source in Sweden, the opinions in literature can still have an impact on the future cases regarding supplementary agreements. This can be proved by the fact that the legal literature has been referred to in the existing cases regarding supplementary agreements. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9142927
- author
- Osvald, Hugo LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20232
- year
- 2023
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Processrätt (civil procedure), Rättskraft, Förlikningar, Supplerande moment
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9142927
- date added to LUP
- 2024-02-02 12:25:05
- date last changed
- 2024-02-02 12:25:05
@misc{9142927,
abstract = {{The courts’ task of trying to reach a conciliation between parts in a dispute has gained increasing priority since the Swedish Civil procedure law came into force. When parties successfully reach an agreement in a dispute pending in court, they can request ratification. If the agreement addresses the subject matter of the claim, the court will ratify the agreement through a judgment. Through the ratification the matter of the conciliation agreement cannot be re-examined. This effect is called claim preclusion (“res iudicata”).
However, in order for the parties to reach an agreement in the first place it is often necessary to include other legal relations than the subject matter of the case. These other questions are called supplementary agreements. The possibility of introducing supplementary agreements in the conciliation agreement present an opportunity for the parties to create a “package solution”. Still, the effect of claim preclusion regarding supplementary agreements is not explicitly stated in the procedural law. Instead, this possibility can be read through case law from the Swedish Supreme Court.
The question of under which conditions supplementary agreements can be precluded in a second dispute remained unanswered for a long time. However, the case of NJA 2017 s. 659 made it clear that the supplementary agreement should be stated in a clear manner in order for it to have a preclusive effect. The case involved a clause between the parties where they declared all their legal matters in relation to the dispute to be finally settled. Although common in conciliation agreements, the Supreme Court concluded that such clause cannot achieve the effect of claim preclusion due to its indistinct scope.
There is a discussion in the legal literature about whether there are more requirements for claim preclusion regarding supplementary agreements beyond those of the case NJA 2017 s. 659. A definitive answer on this question cannot be read through the legal literature. Even though the literature cannot be considered a binding legal source in Sweden, the opinions in literature can still have an impact on the future cases regarding supplementary agreements. This can be proved by the fact that the legal literature has been referred to in the existing cases regarding supplementary agreements.}},
author = {{Osvald, Hugo}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Varom det tvistas (och lite till). Om rättsverkningarna av supplerande moment i stadfästa förlikningar}},
year = {{2023}},
}