Post-Hearing Issues In International Arbitration - Chapter 5 - The Swedish Rules Limiting the Right to AppealAgainst a Court Judgment in a Challenge or Avoidance Action – A Comparative Study

Author(s):

Martin Wallin

Page Count:

12 pages

Published:

September, 2013

Jurisdictions:

Sweden,

Denmark,

England,

Belgium,

United States,

Finland,

Russia,

France

Practice Areas:

Procedure and Grounds for Setting Aside

Author Detail:

Martin Wallin is a Partner with Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd. and Head of the Dispute Resolution team in Stockholm. Martin's field of expertise includes both domestic and international commercial arbitration and litigation. He has an extensive experience from arbitration proceedings and acts both as counsel and as arbitrator under the SCC Rules, the ICC Rules and ad hoc administered arbitration proceedings. His experience as arbitrator includes frequent appointments as chairman, sole arbitrator as well as party appointed arbitrator. Martin has represented Swedish and foreign companies within many different sectors in a wide range of complex commercial disputes. He has particular experience of complex construction and M&A disputes as well as disputes related to the energy sector. Additionally, Martin is on the Board of the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce as well as on the Board of the Swedish Bar Association. Before joining Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd., Martin was a Partner with Linklaters LLP. His past experience also includes serving as a judge in Swedish courts as well as more than ten years of giving lectures on procedural law at the Stockholm University.

Katarina Mild is a Senior Associate with Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd. who focuses on dispute resolution. Her field of expertise includes both domestic and international arbitration, as well as general commercial litigation. Katarina has represented Swedish and foreign companies within many different sectors in a wide range of complex commercial disputes. She has particular experience of disputes and other matters related to life sciences, telecom, insurance and financial markets. Her practice also includes advising clients on regulatory and general commercial matters. Before joining Hannes Snellman Attorneys Ltd., Katarina was an associate with Linklaters LLP. Her past experience also includes working as a Legal Counsel at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and serving as a Law Clerk at the District Court of Stockholm.

PDF176.11 KB

$40.00

Description:

Originally from: Post-Hearing Issues in International Arbitration

I. INTRODUCTION

An arbitral award is not subject to appeal under Swedish Arbitration Law and cannot be reviewed on the merits by a court. This means that an arbitral award is, in principle, final and binding. However, under the Swedish Arbitration Act 1999 there are two actions by which an arbitral award can be set aside due to procedural irregularities; i.e. avoidance and challenge proceedings. Avoidance or challenge actions are filed with the relevant Court of Appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is – as a main rule – not subject to appeal. However, the Court of Appeal may grant permission or a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The two actions for setting aside an arbitral award and the prerequisites that must be fulfilled in order to do so will not be dealt with in this article. The purpose of this article is to describe in more detail the Swedish rules on fora and appeal in a challenge or avoidance action against an arbitral award, comparing the rules with corresponding rules in seven other jurisdictions1 and to consider whether there is call for a change in the Swedish rules limiting the right to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal in a challenge or avoidance action.

Table of Contents:

Chapter 5
The Swedish Rules Limiting the Right to Appeal Against a Court Judgment in a Challenge or Avoidance Action - A Comparative Study
Martin Wallin and Katarina Mild

I. Introduction

II. The Swedish Rules on Fora and Appeal in a Challenge or Avoidance Action

III. Comparison with other Jurisdictions

A. Belgium
B. Denmark
C. England
D. Finland
E. France
F. The Russian Federation
G. The United States
H. Summary

IV. Is There Call for a Change of the Swedish Rules?