Judgment in the Svea Court of Appeal, 9 March 2017. Case No. T1968-16
Summary: A party challenged the arbitration award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his mandate by basing his decision on a legal provision not referenced by the parties. The party also argued that the arbitrator’s failure to inform the parties that he intended to apply certain legal provisions by analogy amounted to a procedural error. The Court dismissed the challenge in its entirety. Pursuant to the principle of jura novit curia, the arbitrators are not bound by the parties’ legal arguments, but are free to decide which provisions of the law that apply based on the referenced circumstances. Thus, the arbitrators shall not be considered to have exceeded their mandate if they applied a provision of the law to the circumstances referenced by the parties in support of their respective cases, even if neither party had referenced the relevant legal provision. The Court also found that no procedural error had occurred.