Närliggande

1.The inconsistencies of the cases referred to above have caused a significant discussion among practitioners as well as created ambiguity as to how a court of law and a tribunal should proceed when determining the scope of an arbitration agreement. It may be added that the Supreme Court in NJA 2010 s. 734, in which case a prorogation clause in a dispute resolution agreement referred disputes under the contract to a district court designated in the agreement, added by way of an “obiter dictum”, that the fact that there is a connection between a disputed legal relationship and another legal relationship which is covered by an arbitration agreement can only in very rare cases and under very specific circumstances cause the arbitration agreement to be extended to include the disputed relationship. The Supreme Court concluded that such an exceptional case was deemed to have occurred in the Supreme Court case NJA 2007 s. 475 referred to above (it may be added that the panel of five Supreme Court Justices in NJA 2010 s. 734 who substantially narrowed down the scope of the decision in NJA 2007 s. 475 from what can be read from the decision itself, did not include any of the justices from the decision in 2007).s. 662