Supreme Court judgment T 4816-12 p. 9. 1 3 Cf. Art. 9.2.3 UNDROIT Principles 2004. 14 Heuman, Fråga om skiljeavtals giltighet vid singularsuccession in Festskrift till Sveriges Advokatsamfund 1887-1987, p. 244, Reldén, Nilsson, The Arbitration Agreement in Franke, Magnusson, International Arbitration in Sweden: A Practitioner’s Guide p. 73, Andersson et al, Arbitration in Sweden, p. 74. 15 Andersson et al, Arbitration in Sweden, p. 73, Reldén, Nilsson, The Arbitration Agreement in Franke, Magnusson, International Arbitration in Sweden: A Practitioner’s Guide p. 73. 1 6 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1466, Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 29, cf. the English case Cottage Club Estates Ltd. V. Woodside Estates Co. Ltd. (1928). 17 NJA 2000 s. 202, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 127. 18 Moscow District Court, 21 April 1997, IMP Group Ltd v Aeroimp in Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration vol. 23 p. 745–749. 19 Heuman, JT 1997–98 s. 533–559. 20 Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 33, cf. also Girsberger, Hausmaninger, Aissignment of Rights and the Agreement to Arbitrate in Arbitration International Vol. 8 Issue 2, p. 137 who point out that the accessory character of the arbitration agreement is promoted mainly in civil law jurisdictions. Similar reasoning is expressed in Art 9.1.14 (b) UNIDROIT Principles 2004. 21 Runesson, Skiljeavtal och singularsuccession in Festskrift till Lars Heuman, p. 396. 2 2 This is the main rule in England, the US and France, see Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, p. 500, Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1467 et seq, Gaillard, Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p. 426, Brekoulakis Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 29 et seq. 23 From the US see case Asset Allocation & Mgt Co. v. W. Employers Ins. Co. 892 F 2d 566, 7th Cir 1989, from England see case West Tankers Inc. v. Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (2005) EWHC 454, English High Court. From Switzerland see Swiss Federal Tribunal judgment of 9 May 2001 in ASA Bulletin vol. 20 issue 1 p. 80–87, from Germany see Bundesgerichtshof judgment of 2 October 1997, 1998 NJW 371. 24 Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 129, Heuman, JT 2009–10 s. 346. 25 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1416, Brekoulakis Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 187. 26 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1415, cf. different Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 199. 2 7 NJA 1997 s, 866 on 873, NJA 2000 s. 538 (Bulbank), Reldén, Nilsson, The Arbitration Agreement in Franke, Magnusson, International Arbitration in Sweden: A Practitioner’s Guide, p. 73, Andersson et al, Arbitration in Sweden, p. 73–74, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 129. 28 Redfern, Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 5th ed., p. 102 et seq. 29 SCC Case no. 12/2002. 30 Stockholm District Court judgment T 6-111-98 p. 6. 31 Landrove, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2004:1, p. 134. 3 2 Heuman, JT 1997–98 s. 533, Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 92 et seq., Kadelburger, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2000:2, p. 22 et seq. 33 Heuman, Skiljemannarätt, p. 111, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 94–95, 242, Kadelburger, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2000:2, p. 24. 34 Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 77, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 127, Redfern, Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 5th ed., p. 85, Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, 472. 35 Heuman JT 1997–98 s. 558. Kadelburger, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2000:2, p. 24–25. 36 Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 93, Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1486, Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, p. 476. 37 NJA 1997 s. 866, Landrove, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2004:1, p. 126, Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 93. 38 Heuman JT 1997–98 s. 542. 3 9 Lindskog I:0-5.2.2 note 6. 40 Lindskog I:0-5.2.1 note 2, my translation. 41 Lindskog I:0-5.2.1 note 2, cf prop. 1998/99:35 p. 64. 42 Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, p. 475 et seq. 43 Cf SAA § 1, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 91 and 95. 44 Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 196, Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 94. 45 Cf. Brekoulakis, Journal of International Arbitration Vol. 24 Issue 4, 2007, pp. 341–364. 46 Gaillard, Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p. 260, Born International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1488– 1489. 4 7 Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 197. 48 Lew, Mistelis et al, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, p. 147. In the US see case Banque de Paris et des Pays-bas v Amoco Oil Company 573 F Supp. 1464, Southern District of New York 1983 where the court disapproved of the ability to unilaterally extricate oneself from the arbitration agreement. See also Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 36 where the transferee’s ”dire financial position” is recognized. 49 Cf prop. 1998/99:35 p. 64. 5 0 See NJA 1997 s. 866, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 128. 51 NJA 1997 s. 866 on 873. 52 Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 (Zeteo). 53 NJA 1997 s. 866 on 873, cf Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar I:0-5.2.2 (Zeteo). 54 Lindskog JT 1993–94 s. 826, on 827 note 5. 55 Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 note 7 (Zeteo). 56 Lindskog JT 1993–94 s. 827 note 5, Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 note 7 (Zeteo). 57 Olsson, Kvart, Lagen om skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, p. 140, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 128-129. 58 Heuman, Fråga om skiljeavtals giltighet vid singularsuccession in Festskrift till Sveriges Advokatsamfund 1887-1987, p. 230 and 241. 5 9 Cf Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 34, prop. 1998/99:35 p. 64. Internationally the most common rule is that both parties remain bound, Lew, Mistelis et al, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, p. 146, Redfern, Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 5th ed., p. 102. 60 Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 note 7 (Zeteo). 61 See the Stockholm District Court’s judgment preceding NJA 2000 s. 538, case no T 6-111-98. It is also reasonable to provide for a safety valve in cases of apparent abuse such as procedural torpedoes, cf NJA 2014 s. 877. 62 See primarily Heuman, JT 2009–10 s. 335 on 346, Andersson et al, Arbitration in Sweden p. 73 note 130, Madsen, Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 88 note 245. Internationally see Born, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 1469, Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 36. In case law see both Svea Court of Appeal case T 8032-00 (Custos) and the Swiss Federal Tribunal, 9 April 1991, Clear Star. 63 Stockholm District Court’s judgment T 6111-98 p. 10. 6 4 Cf Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 note 5 (Zeteo), Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 128–129, Reldén, Nilsson, The Arbitration Agreement in Franke, Magnusson, International Arbitration in Sweden: A Practitioner’s Guide, p. 73. 65 Cf NJA 1997 s. 866 on 872 et seq. Although, as the court noted in Emja, a strong personal connection is unusual in the commercial context. For similar reasoning in the international context see Gaillard, Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p. 431. 66 Heuman JT 1997–98 s. 542. 67 Heuman JT 1997–98 s. 542. 68 Example taken from Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 36. 6 9 From the US see Cedrela Transport Ltd v Banque Cantonale Vaudoise 67 F supp. 353 Southern District of New York 1999, from France see CCC Filmkunst v EDIF 1988 Court of Appeal Paris 28 January 1988, Gaillard, Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p. 431, Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 35, Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, p. 498. 7 0 Landrove, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2004:1, p. 127.
Hänvisas från p. 17 (s. 635)
Supreme Court judgment T 4816-12 p. 9. 1 3 Cf. Art. 9.2.3 UNDROIT Principles 2004. 14 Heuman, Fråga om skiljeavtals giltighet vid singularsuccession in Festskrift till Sveriges Advokatsamfund 1887-1987, p. 244, Reldén, Nilsson, The Arbitration Agreement in Franke, Magnusson, International Arbitration in Sweden: A Practitioner’s Guide p. 73, Andersson et al, Arbitration in Sweden, p. 74. 15 Andersson et al, Arbitration in Sweden, p. 73, Reldén, Nilsson, The Arbitration Agreement in Franke, Magnusson, International Arbitration in Sweden: A Practitioner’s Guide p. 73. 1 6 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1466, Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 29, cf. the English case Cottage Club Estates Ltd. V. Woodside Estates Co. Ltd. (1928). 17 NJA 2000 s. 202, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 127. 18 Moscow District Court, 21 April 1997, IMP Group Ltd v Aeroimp in Yearbook of Commercial Arbitration vol. 23 p. 745–749. 19 Heuman, JT 1997–98 s. 533–559. 20 Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 33, cf. also Girsberger, Hausmaninger, Aissignment of Rights and the Agreement to Arbitrate in Arbitration International Vol. 8 Issue 2, p. 137 who point out that the accessory character of the arbitration agreement is promoted mainly in civil law jurisdictions. Similar reasoning is expressed in Art 9.1.14 (b) UNIDROIT Principles 2004. 21 Runesson, Skiljeavtal och singularsuccession in Festskrift till Lars Heuman, p. 396. 2 2 This is the main rule in England, the US and France, see Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, p. 500, Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1467 et seq, Gaillard, Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p. 426, Brekoulakis Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 29 et seq. 23 From the US see case Asset Allocation & Mgt Co. v. W. Employers Ins. Co. 892 F 2d 566, 7th Cir 1989, from England see case West Tankers Inc. v. Ras Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta SpA (2005) EWHC 454, English High Court. From Switzerland see Swiss Federal Tribunal judgment of 9 May 2001 in ASA Bulletin vol. 20 issue 1 p. 80–87, from Germany see Bundesgerichtshof judgment of 2 October 1997, 1998 NJW 371. 24 Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 129, Heuman, JT 2009–10 s. 346. 25 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1416, Brekoulakis Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 187. 26 Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1415, cf. different Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 199. 2 7 NJA 1997 s, 866 on 873, NJA 2000 s. 538 (Bulbank), Reldén, Nilsson, The Arbitration Agreement in Franke, Magnusson, International Arbitration in Sweden: A Practitioner’s Guide, p. 73, Andersson et al, Arbitration in Sweden, p. 73–74, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 129. 28 Redfern, Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 5th ed., p. 102 et seq. 29 SCC Case no. 12/2002. 30 Stockholm District Court judgment T 6-111-98 p. 6. 31 Landrove, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2004:1, p. 134. 3 2 Heuman, JT 1997–98 s. 533, Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 92 et seq., Kadelburger, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2000:2, p. 22 et seq. 33 Heuman, Skiljemannarätt, p. 111, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 94–95, 242, Kadelburger, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2000:2, p. 24. 34 Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 77, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 127, Redfern, Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 5th ed., p. 85, Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, 472. 35 Heuman JT 1997–98 s. 558. Kadelburger, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2000:2, p. 24–25. 36 Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 93, Born, International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1486, Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, p. 476. 37 NJA 1997 s. 866, Landrove, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2004:1, p. 126, Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 93. 38 Heuman JT 1997–98 s. 542. 3 9 Lindskog I:0-5.2.2 note 6. 40 Lindskog I:0-5.2.1 note 2, my translation. 41 Lindskog I:0-5.2.1 note 2, cf prop. 1998/99:35 p. 64. 42 Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, p. 475 et seq. 43 Cf SAA § 1, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 91 and 95. 44 Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 196, Heuman, Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure, p. 94. 45 Cf. Brekoulakis, Journal of International Arbitration Vol. 24 Issue 4, 2007, pp. 341–364. 46 Gaillard, Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p. 260, Born International Commercial Arbitration, 2nd ed., p. 1488– 1489. 4 7 Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 197. 48 Lew, Mistelis et al, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, p. 147. In the US see case Banque de Paris et des Pays-bas v Amoco Oil Company 573 F Supp. 1464, Southern District of New York 1983 where the court disapproved of the ability to unilaterally extricate oneself from the arbitration agreement. See also Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 36 where the transferee’s ”dire financial position” is recognized. 49 Cf prop. 1998/99:35 p. 64. 5 0 See NJA 1997 s. 866, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 128. 51 NJA 1997 s. 866 on 873. 52 Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 (Zeteo). 53 NJA 1997 s. 866 on 873, cf Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar I:0-5.2.2 (Zeteo). 54 Lindskog JT 1993–94 s. 826, on 827 note 5. 55 Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 note 7 (Zeteo). 56 Lindskog JT 1993–94 s. 827 note 5, Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 note 7 (Zeteo). 57 Olsson, Kvart, Lagen om skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, p. 140, Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 128-129. 58 Heuman, Fråga om skiljeavtals giltighet vid singularsuccession in Festskrift till Sveriges Advokatsamfund 1887-1987, p. 230 and 241. 5 9 Cf Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 34, prop. 1998/99:35 p. 64. Internationally the most common rule is that both parties remain bound, Lew, Mistelis et al, Comparative International Commercial Arbitration, p. 146, Redfern, Hunter, Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 5th ed., p. 102. 60 Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 note 7 (Zeteo). 61 See the Stockholm District Court’s judgment preceding NJA 2000 s. 538, case no T 6-111-98. It is also reasonable to provide for a safety valve in cases of apparent abuse such as procedural torpedoes, cf NJA 2014 s. 877. 62 See primarily Heuman, JT 2009–10 s. 335 on 346, Andersson et al, Arbitration in Sweden p. 73 note 130, Madsen, Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 88 note 245. Internationally see Born, International Commercial Arbitration, p. 1469, Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 36. In case law see both Svea Court of Appeal case T 8032-00 (Custos) and the Swiss Federal Tribunal, 9 April 1991, Clear Star. 63 Stockholm District Court’s judgment T 6111-98 p. 10. 6 4 Cf Lindskog, Skiljeförfarande — En kommentar, I:0-5.2.2 note 5 (Zeteo), Hobér, International Commercial Arbitration in Sweden, p. 128–129, Reldén, Nilsson, The Arbitration Agreement in Franke, Magnusson, International Arbitration in Sweden: A Practitioner’s Guide, p. 73. 65 Cf NJA 1997 s. 866 on 872 et seq. Although, as the court noted in Emja, a strong personal connection is unusual in the commercial context. For similar reasoning in the international context see Gaillard, Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p. 431. 66 Heuman JT 1997–98 s. 542. 67 Heuman JT 1997–98 s. 542. 68 Example taken from Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 36. 6 9 From the US see Cedrela Transport Ltd v Banque Cantonale Vaudoise 67 F supp. 353 Southern District of New York 1999, from France see CCC Filmkunst v EDIF 1988 Court of Appeal Paris 28 January 1988, Gaillard, Savage, Fouchard, Gaillard, Goldman on International Commercial Arbitration, p. 431, Brekoulakis, Third Parties in International Commercial Arbitration, p. 35, Hosking, Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal Vol. 4 Issue 3, 2004, p. 498. 7 0 Landrove, Stockholm Arbitration Report Vol. 2004:1, p. 127.s. 635