Search terms: Litigation, Sweden
The Svea Court of Appeal has held that an arbitrator who shared offices with and was a consultant for a law firm that had a continuous relationship with the group of companies to which one of the parties belonged could not be regarded as partial. Failure to disclose this relationship did not in itself affect the arbitrator's impartiality. The case is pending before the Supreme Court.
The Svea Court of Appeal recently held that the mere allegation that the claimant had an investment covered by the arbitration provisions of the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on Foreign Investments was not a sufficient basis for the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal. The court thus confirmed that the arbitral tribunal correctly dismissed the arbitration. The case has been appealed to the Supreme Court.
A company sought compensation for costs related to an arbitration, based on the fact that the defendant had not paid its share of security for compensation to the arbitrators. The claim was dismissed without further hearing on the grounds that the defendant had not forfeited its right to rely on the arbitration agreement as a bar to court proceedings in the matter at hand. A Supreme Court decision is pending.
An arbitration award has been partially set aside by the Svea Court of Appeal. The court held that the arbitrators had tried the very issue that fell outside the scope of the relief sought by the claimant, and had thus exceeded their mandate. The decision has been appealed and a Supreme Court ruling is pending.
The Supreme Court has ruled that, when determining the issue of jurisdiction in cases involving 'facts of double relevance', courts must accept the circumstances claimed by the plaintiff pertaining to the existence of an agreement, where these claims are not obviously unfounded. The court held that the Brussels Convention is not applicable to matters of evidence pertaining to the existence of agreements.
The courts have rejected a motion to dismiss without further hearing a counterclaim submitted in court proceedings, even though the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement. The counterclaim was allowed on the grounds that a party to an arbitration agreement which has initiated court proceedings may not rely on the agreement to bar the other party from submitting a counterclaim on the same subject matter.
The Stockholm City Court and the Court of Appeal have rejected an appeal by a party to an arbitration against a decision by an arbitration institute not to dismiss an arbitrator. The grounds for rejection were that the Arbitration Act allowed the parties to decide that questions about the arbitrator's impartiality would be finally resolved by the arbitration institute.
The West Sweden Court of Appeal recently held that the fact that an arbitrator has settled a dispute without observing an EU directive and/or a decision of the Council of the European Union does not mean that the arbitral award is in conflict with Swedish public order, as long as the provisions not observed do not express any fundamental principle.
In a case regarding the challenge of an arbitral award, a rule on evidence in the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure was held to be a part of general law. The courts ruled that the arbitrators were at liberty to apply the rule in arbitral proceedings notwithstanding its procedural nature and the parties' arguments before the arbitrators.
The Supreme Court has clarified that a court may issue an order for an interim security measure to the effect that a party must carry out the same performance as is requested in the main proceedings. However, the court stressed that an order which temporarily determines the rights between the parties in such a way must be justified by compelling reasons.
In rejecting the Czech Republic's challenge to an arbitration award made against it in a television licensing dispute, the Svea Court of Appeal emphasized the final and binding character of arbitration awards. The court also upheld the principle that challenges must be tried in only one forum by not granting leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court recently confirmed that a creditor is entitled to invoke an arbitration clause and thus refer disputes to arbitration if the debtor has been declared bankrupt and bankruptcy proceedings are pending. Interestingly, the court indicated that other creditors may be able to intervene in such proceedings.
The Supreme Court has held that otherwise valid and enforceable contracts which contain an illegal or immoral clause may be enforced in the Swedish courts. It ruled that cases involving such mixed contracts should be tried on their merits and not dismissed as a matter of procedure, especially in light of the right of access to the courts enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Supreme Court recently refused to enforce an arbitral award on the basis that enforcement would be incompatible with the fundamental principles of the Swedish legal system. The court appears to have considered the award to be a sham between two brothers, intended to protect the property of one against his creditors in bankruptcy.
Amendments to the Code of Judicial Procedure give courts enhanced powers to issue default judgments and similar orders, and are aimed at increasing the efficiency of the legal system. Reasons for issuing such judgments include non-appearance and the passivity of the plaintiff.
A recent bill proposes the introduction of class actions in Sweden. The ordinary litigation procedure in the Code of Judicial Procedure will be complemented by a law on class action in the general courts and particular provisions about class action in the Environmental Code.
Including: Sources of Swedish Civil Procedural Law; Courts; The Legal Profession; The Proceedings; Evidence; Costs; Interim Remedies; Suggested Changes to Swedish Procedural Law.
The Commission of Judicial Procedure was assigned the task of investigating ways of improving the procedures of Swedish courts in civil cases and has duly submitted a list of proposed changes. This article lists the changes and discusses the impact they will have on court cases in Sweden.