För att utföra sökning inom dokumentet så trycker man på enter-tangenten eller klickar på sök-knappen.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal for Western Sweden, 24 September 2014, Case No. T 2290-13

Göta HovR, 24 September 2014, Case No. T 2290-13 English
Ange din e-post för att ladda ner filen kostnadsfritt.
Göta HovR, 24 September 2014, Case No. T 2290-13 Swedish
Ange din e-post för att ladda ner filen kostnadsfritt.

Metadata

Date of decision

Court

Court of Appeal

Case No.

Case No. T 2290-13

Subject Matter

Right to claim compensation for costs after award was rendered.

Summary:The tribunal rendered a negative award on jurisdiction. At the time of the award, the respondent had presented yet not specified its claim for compensation of costs incurred in the arbitration. After the award was rendered, the respondent requested supplementation of the award as to include its compensation for costs or, alternatively, that an additional award be made. The tribunal rejected the respondent’s request. The respondent appealed the award and requested the Court to amend the award as to include its claim for compensation of costs. The Court explained that the tribunal’s decision not to supplement the award or to render an additional award cannot be appealed, yet, how a tribunal deals with a case procedurally can be appealed. The Court referred to the commentary of the Swedish Arbitration Act, which indicates that errors in the conduct of arbitral proceedings ought to be reviewed in accordance to the same principles applicable to proceduralerrors committed by public courts, and that the provisions contained in Section 28 Chapter 20 of the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure ought to apply by analogy, implying that the Court of Appeal can rectify errors. In the opinion of the Court it must have been clear for the tribunal that the respondent did not understand that the proceedings would be closed through the tribunal’s negative decision on
jurisdiction. The tribunal’s failure to communicate this to the respondent, led the respondent not being compensated for its costs. The Court found the respondent to be entitled to such compensation and ordered amendment of the award. The Court granted leave to appeal before the Supreme Court