Judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal, 28 August 2009, Case No. T 1648-08
Summary: The appellant challenged the award alleging invalidity of the arbitration clause due to an unauthorized signatory and breach of Swedish public policy; in the alternative, the appellant requested a retrial, alleging false witness statements and the principle of factum superveniens. Regarding the invalidity of the clause, the Court found that the grounds listed in Section 33 of the Swedish Arbitration Act to challenge an award are exhaustive and do not cover an invalid arbitration clause. The court further explained that Swedish public policy is breached by an award that orders criminal acts, acts prohibited by law or acts that are of a punitive nature or by the arbitrators’ failure to consider mandatory rules that protect third parties or public interests. The procedural errors alleged by the appellant were not of such nature. The court also dismissed the motion for a retrial, finding that if new events became known after the final award was rendered and the final award did not consider such facts (factum superveniens) such events could be relied on in new arbitration proceedings but not before public courts. The Svea Court of Appeal rejected all challenges.