Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal, 5 May 2012, Case No. T 10329-10 and T 10401-10
Summary: The appellant challenged two arbitral awards on, among others, the ground that the arbitral awards were not covered by valid arbitration clauses (Section 34 (1) Swedish Arbitration Act). The appellant alleged that the clauses were not covered by a joint will of the parties and that they contradicted other clauses which provided for resolution of disputes by public courts. The Svea Court of Appeal explained that when the wording of the different clauses does not indicate which one should take precedence over the other, and when the difference in meaning of various words in different languages does not provide a conclusion as to what the parties meant, and when the witness statements also do not provide any guidance on the parties’ opinion on the fact that the clauses reference court proceedings as well as arbitration proceedings, the remaining issue is whether the clauses are objectively incompatible. On this point, the Court emphasized that if a claimant initiates court proceedings despite the existence of an arbitration clause, the arbitration clause shall be deemed a procedural impediment only if the respondent makes a reference thereto. Thus, an arbitration clause does not render dispute resolution before courts impossible when both parties find that as the most suitable solution. Here, the Court did not find the clauses to be contradictory in such a way as to render the arbitration clauses invalid or without effect. Instead, they could be viewed as alternative. The Court rejected the challenge.