Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal, 18 September 2014, Case No. T 8851-13
Summary:The respondent requested the Court to amend the award alleging that the tribunal had made a procedural error that affected the outcome of the case. The respondent maintained that the tribunal had, despite respondent’s objections, incorrectly ordered the respondent to compensate claimant’s costs for legal counsel including VAT. The respondent had requested the tribunal to correct the award, since VAT did not constitute a cost for the claimant. The tribunal refused respondent’s request, noting that its objection had been brief and poorly substantiated and was thereby insufficient to reject the claimant’s claim for compensation including VAT. The respondent alleged that the tribunal’s failure to guide the proceedings and clarify that respondent’s objection was too brief and not sufficiently detailed constituted a procedural error. In rejecting respondent’s request, the Court of Appeal explained that the tribunal had concluded that the respondent had presented insufficient evidence to support that claimant’s claim excluded VAT. The tribunal’s decision to order compensation including VAT was a decision on the merits and as such not subject to appeal. The decision may have been wrong, but did not constitute a procedural error.