@misc{9226994,
  abstract     = {{Under Swedish law, arbitration is an established form of dispute resolution whose contractual basis is characterised by party autonomy, efficiency, and finality. The procedure is largely comparable to court proceedings and is the only alternative dispute resolution procedure that results in an enforceable and legally binding judgment. At the same time, the structure of arbitration means that it is, in principle, limited to the parties covered by the arbitration agreement. This differs from general civil proceedings, in which procedural rules are designed to address situations where multiple parties are affected by the same dispute. General civil procedure provides a well-developed framework for third-party intervention in Chapter 14, Sections 9 and 11 of the Code of Judicial Procedure, which allows third parties to join ongoing proceedings to protect their interests. The Arbitration Act (1999:116), however, lacks a corresponding provision, which means that a third party’s ability to intervene in arbitration proceedings is largely unregulated and legally unclear.

This issue becomes particularly clear in cases involving challenges to general meeting resolutions. Such disputes are characterised by the fact that, pursuant to Chapter 7, Section 52 of the Companies Act (2005:551), the decision becomes legally binding even for shareholders who did not participate in the proceedings. Furthermore, disputes of this nature are, generally, not subject to settlement. For example, the challenging shareholder and the company’s representative cannot determine the validity of a general meeting resolution by agreement. Such an arrangement would undermine the legitimacy of the general meeting of shareholders and the functioning of the decision-making process under company law. Despite this, legal sources presuppose that disputes concerning challenges to general meeting resolutions are arbitrable. This framework thus raises questions regarding the conditions under which such disputes are arbitrable and how the third-party interests of other shareholders should, in such cases, be safeguarded within the framework of the arbitral proceedings.

This thesis aims to clarify the conditions under which a third party may be granted a right of intervention in arbitral proceedings. In addition, it specifically analyses whether there is legal support for a right of intervention in arbitral proceedings concerning challenges to resolutions of the general meeting based on a valid arbitration clause in the articles of association, should such disputes be considered arbitrable. The study is not limited to determining the content of current law, but also includes a critical analysis of how the legal situation should be understood and shaped.

The analysis shows that the fundamental principles of arbitration law, particularly party autonomy and the requirement of settlement capability, collectively argue against a general right of intervention in arbitration. Intervention appears instead to be a conditional possibility, dependent on the consent of both the parties and the arbitrators. A general right of intervention can therefore be considered excluded in most cases. However, special considerations apply to challenges to general meeting resolutions. The starting point is that such disputes are arbitrable only if all shareholders have agreed to arbitration or if the arbitration clause is stipulated in the articles of association pursuant to Chapter 7, Section 54 of the Companies Act. According to the paper, the distinctive nature of the dispute, particularly its limited suitability for settlement and its binding effect on other shareholders, suggests that the right of intervention must be permitted in situations where the arbitration clause is derived from the articles of association. A strict application of the general rule that intervention is incompatible with arbitration otherwise risks undermining the requirement for a substantive review. The absence of a right to intervene, in fact, enables strategic procedural maneuvers where general meeting resolutions can effectively be rendered ineffective without other shareholders being given the opportunity to protect their interests. The thesis thus highlights the tension between the fundamental principles of arbitration and the third-party interests of shareholders. And argues that the right of intervention in challenges to general meeting resolutions, where the arbitration clause originates in the articles of association, is a prerequisite for maintaining a substantive review in these proceedings, which are not capable of settlement.}},
  author       = {{Nikolausson, Julia}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Interventionsrätt i skiljeförfarande – Särskilt om klander av bolagsstämmobeslut med stöd av en skiljeklausul i bolagsordningen}},
  year         = {{2026}},
}