Stycket

4.In NJA 2010 s. 508, the Supreme Court held that as a rule, uncertainty regarding the legal relationship is demonstrated already by the fact that the parties disagree on the scope of the arbitrators’ jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction issue is not resolved before the arbitral proceedings have been concluded and the costs have accumulated, this may prove to be detrimental. Therefore, according to the Supreme Court, it could be argued that an action concerning lack of jurisdiction in a particular dispute under Section 2 of the Arbitration Act is appropriate and admissible if the case cannot be expected to be finally adjudicated at a time which, for instance, will result in significant cost savings in the arbitral proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded on the basis hereof that a party should be entitled to initiate an action under Section 2 of the Arbitration Act concerning the arbitrators’ jurisdiction prior to the issuance of an arbitral award, at least in situations where the award may not reasonably be expected in the near future.s. 656