Skiljenämnders behörighet att pröva kvittningsframställningar i internationella skiljeförfaranden
(2025) JURM02 20251Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- Set-off – the mutual extinction of opposing claims – often gives rise to complex jurisdictional issues in arbitration despite its commercial importance. An arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the legal relationship defined in the
arbitration agreement, which may exclude set-off defences raised by the respondent. However, set-off is considered a defence, and allowing its adjudication promotes procedural efficiency. In Sweden, legal policy has suggested that other international rules should be considered in shaping the Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116) (SAA).
Thus, the essay poses the following questions: 1) Under what conditions can an arbitral tribunal consider set-off defences in international arbitrations seated in... (More) - Set-off – the mutual extinction of opposing claims – often gives rise to complex jurisdictional issues in arbitration despite its commercial importance. An arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the legal relationship defined in the
arbitration agreement, which may exclude set-off defences raised by the respondent. However, set-off is considered a defence, and allowing its adjudication promotes procedural efficiency. In Sweden, legal policy has suggested that other international rules should be considered in shaping the Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116) (SAA).
Thus, the essay poses the following questions: 1) Under what conditions can an arbitral tribunal consider set-off defences in international arbitrations seated in Sweden? 2) How does Swedish regulation of arbitral tribunals’ jurisdiction to adjudicate set-off defences compare to the corresponding provisions in the international rules that are the subject of this study, and are there grounds for developing Swedish law in the light of these comparisons? These
questions are studied through a mixed methodology, including legal dogmatic, international, critical and practical perspectives.
Under Swedish law, set-off defences that fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement may, as a rule, be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. However, where the legal basis for the cross-claim does not require adjudication –
such as when the plaintiff does not object to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction – the tribunal may still consider the set-off defence. In the event of split jurisdiction, coordination between the proceedings is encouraged.
Internationally, legislation and arbitration rules seldom address set-off. Legal doctrine reveals two main schools of thought: the traditional school, with the arbitration agreement as the definitive limit of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the pragmatic school, which emphasizes the substantive nature of set-off defences, thereby suggesting that tribunals should always be able to consider them, irrespective of whether they fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. However, there seems to be a growing tendency to allow adjudication of substantive set-off, where the cross-claim arises from a related contract. Such a result can be achieved by extensive interpretation of the scope of the arbitration agreement.
In international arbitrations seated in Sweden, this tendency may support the view that a connection between the cross-claim and the arbitration agreement is sufficient for the establishment of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate set-off defences. Compared to other international rules, Swedish law appears to strike a reasonable balance between the conflicting interests involved with set-off defences. Nonetheless, certain clarifications in the SAA could enhance accessibility and foreseeability for foreign practitioners. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Kvittning – gemensam avräkning av motstående fordringar – kan trots sin affärsmässiga betydelse medföra komplexa behörighetsfrågor i skiljeförfaranden. Skiljenämndens behörighet är begränsad till det rättsförhållande som angivits i skiljeavtalet, vilket kan innebära att kvittningsframställningar från svaranden inte kan prövas. Samtidigt utgör kvittningsframställningar sakinvändningar, vars prövning kan bidra till bland annat ökad processekonomi och effektivitet. I Sverige har det framförts rättspolitiska åsikter att andra internationella regelverk ska beaktas vid utformningen av lagen (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande (LSF).
Mot denna bakgrund har uppsatsen följande frågeställningar: 1) Under vilka förutsättningar kan en skiljenämnd pröva... (More) - Kvittning – gemensam avräkning av motstående fordringar – kan trots sin affärsmässiga betydelse medföra komplexa behörighetsfrågor i skiljeförfaranden. Skiljenämndens behörighet är begränsad till det rättsförhållande som angivits i skiljeavtalet, vilket kan innebära att kvittningsframställningar från svaranden inte kan prövas. Samtidigt utgör kvittningsframställningar sakinvändningar, vars prövning kan bidra till bland annat ökad processekonomi och effektivitet. I Sverige har det framförts rättspolitiska åsikter att andra internationella regelverk ska beaktas vid utformningen av lagen (1999:116) om skiljeförfarande (LSF).
Mot denna bakgrund har uppsatsen följande frågeställningar: 1) Under vilka förutsättningar kan en skiljenämnd pröva kvittningsframställningar vid internationella skiljeförfaranden med säte i Sverige? 2) Hur förhåller sig svensk reglering av skiljenämnders behörighet att pröva kvittningsframställningar till motsvarande reglering i de internationella regelverk som utgör uppsatsens undersökningsobjekt, och finns det skäl att utveckla svensk rätt i ljuset därav? Frågorna undersöks genom en blandad metod med inslag av rättsdogmatiska, internationella, kritiska och praktiska perspektiv.
I svensk rätt gäller som huvudregel att skiljenämnden kan pröva kvittningsframställningar när deras rättsgrund omfattas av skiljeavtalet. I andra fall ligger de i princip utanför skiljenämndens behörighet, med undantag för när motfordran inte kräver självständig prövning, exempelvis om käranden inte invänder mot skiljenämndens behörighet. Vid delad behörighet över fordringarna bör samordning mellan processerna eftersträvas.
Internationellt är regleringen av kvittningsframställningar i skiljeförfaranden begränsad, både i lagar och skiljedomsreglementen. Inom doktrinen har två skolor växt fram: den traditionella skolan, som ser skiljeavtalet som den yttersta gränsen för skiljenämndens behörighet, och den pragmatiska skolan, som betonar kvittningsframställningens karaktär av sakinvändning, och därmed menar att nämnden alltid kan pröva den – oberoende av om motfordran täcks av skiljeavtalet. Det verkar dock finnas en ökad tendens att tillåta prövning vid materiell kvittning där motfordran härrör från ett till huvudfordran närliggande kontrakt. Ett sådant resultat kan uppnås genom extensiv tolkning av skiljeavtalets omfattning.
I internationella skiljeförfaranden med säte i Sverige kan denna tendens ge stöd för att motfordrans anknytning till skiljeavtalet är tillräcklig för att grunda skiljenämndens behörighet att pröva kvittningsframställningar. I jämförelse med annan internationell reglering kan konstateras att svensk rätt uppnår en rimlig avvägning mellan de motstående intressen som aktualiseras vid kvittningsframställningar. Däremot skulle vissa förtydliganden i LSF kunna öka tillgängligheten och förutsebarheten för utländska tillämpare. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9189240
- author
- Bodin, Max LU
- supervisor
- organization
- alternative title
- Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals to adjudicate set-off defences in international arbitration
- course
- JURM02 20251
- year
- 2025
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- processrätt, skiljedomsrätt, civilrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9189240
- date added to LUP
- 2025-06-13 11:39:11
- date last changed
- 2025-06-13 11:39:11
@misc{9189240,
abstract = {{Set-off – the mutual extinction of opposing claims – often gives rise to complex jurisdictional issues in arbitration despite its commercial importance. An arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to the legal relationship defined in the
arbitration agreement, which may exclude set-off defences raised by the respondent. However, set-off is considered a defence, and allowing its adjudication promotes procedural efficiency. In Sweden, legal policy has suggested that other international rules should be considered in shaping the Swedish Arbitration Act (1999:116) (SAA).
Thus, the essay poses the following questions: 1) Under what conditions can an arbitral tribunal consider set-off defences in international arbitrations seated in Sweden? 2) How does Swedish regulation of arbitral tribunals’ jurisdiction to adjudicate set-off defences compare to the corresponding provisions in the international rules that are the subject of this study, and are there grounds for developing Swedish law in the light of these comparisons? These
questions are studied through a mixed methodology, including legal dogmatic, international, critical and practical perspectives.
Under Swedish law, set-off defences that fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement may, as a rule, be adjudicated by the arbitral tribunal. However, where the legal basis for the cross-claim does not require adjudication –
such as when the plaintiff does not object to the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction – the tribunal may still consider the set-off defence. In the event of split jurisdiction, coordination between the proceedings is encouraged.
Internationally, legislation and arbitration rules seldom address set-off. Legal doctrine reveals two main schools of thought: the traditional school, with the arbitration agreement as the definitive limit of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the pragmatic school, which emphasizes the substantive nature of set-off defences, thereby suggesting that tribunals should always be able to consider them, irrespective of whether they fall within the scope of the arbitration agreement. However, there seems to be a growing tendency to allow adjudication of substantive set-off, where the cross-claim arises from a related contract. Such a result can be achieved by extensive interpretation of the scope of the arbitration agreement.
In international arbitrations seated in Sweden, this tendency may support the view that a connection between the cross-claim and the arbitration agreement is sufficient for the establishment of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction to adjudicate set-off defences. Compared to other international rules, Swedish law appears to strike a reasonable balance between the conflicting interests involved with set-off defences. Nonetheless, certain clarifications in the SAA could enhance accessibility and foreseeability for foreign practitioners.}},
author = {{Bodin, Max}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Skiljenämnders behörighet att pröva kvittningsframställningar i internationella skiljeförfaranden}},
year = {{2025}},
}