1.Much of the Swedish debate on party substitution in arbitration agreements has circulated around the effects of singular succession on arbitration agreements. One of the most disputed aspects is to what extent the remaining party (A) is bound to arbitrate with the transferee (C) when a right only has been transferred from A’s original counterparty (B), to (C). The Swedish position on this issue is unregulated in the Swedish Arbitration Act (SAA). Instead, it is defined by a concise statement in the preparatory works of the SAA and the succinct Supreme Court judgment NJA 1997 s. 866 (“Emja”).s. 633
2.Although the Emja case primarily concerned whether the remaining party (A) could rely on an arbitration agreement against the transferee of a right (C), the Supreme Court also noted, in addition to the case before them, what the binding effect of the arbitration agreement would have been if it had been the transferee (C) that sought to rely on the arbitration agreement. On this point the Supreme Court formulated the “Emja rule”, according to which the remaining party (A) is bound by an arbitration agreement also when a transferee (C) seeks to rely on it, unless “special circumstances” apply.s. 633
3.However, as will be further discussed in this article, the argument has been made that the Emja rule was only an additional statement (obiter dictum) made by the court and, as it was not part of the Supreme Court’s solution of the case at hand, the Emja rule has no real precedent value. For this reason, the Supreme Court case T 4816-12 Electrolux presented a much-needed opportunity to settle whether the Emja rule constitutes the state of the law, and to clarify the binding effect of arbitration agreements on remaining parties after singular succession.s. 634
4.Unfortunately, no such clarification was provided and it has to be concluded that Electrolux is an opportunity foregone. This article will therefore revisit the subject and seek to establish what the state of the law is for remaining parties after singular succession, and to contribute to the understanding of the consequences of singular succession on arbitration agreements. The Supreme Court’s recent judgment NJA 2015 s. 1040 and its impact on the applicability of the Emja rule will also be discussed.s. 634