SCC Statistics 2016
The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) is one of the world’s leading forums for dispute resolution. The SCC also plays a leading role internationally as the second largest forum in the world for the administration of disputes between investors and states under its own rules.
2016 has proven to be another strong year for the SCC. In this year, the SCC administered 199 cases, which is the third highest caseload since the SCC was founded in 1917.
The SCC presents a more extensive statistics for 2016 compared to the years before. Among the new statistics is the gender balance in arbitrator appointment and amount in dispute.
Out of the 199 cases, 52% (103) were international and 48% (96) Swedish, which clearly evidenced the strong position of the SCC as a preferred venue for dispute resolution among both the Swedish and the international business community.
Of the 2016 caseload, 62% (123) were administered under the SCC Rules, and 28% (55) were administered under the SCC Rules for Expedited Arbitrations. The SCC also administered 13 Emergency Arbitrator proceedings, which was a sharp increase from 2015.
Parties from 44 different countries chose to resolve their disputes with the SCC in 2016. Swedish parties continued to appear most frequently in SCC cases. Outside Sweden, Russia, Ukraine, USA, Germany and Azerbaijan were the most frequent nationalities to appear before the SCC.
The cases commenced in 2016 were disputes stemming from a wide range of contract subjects. Most frequently parties brought disputes arising out of delivery agreements, service agreements, business acquistions, construction agreements and joint venture agreements.
For the majority of awards rendered under the SCC Arbitration Rules in 2016, it took between 6-12 months from the time of registration of a case until the rendering of an award.
For the majority of awards rendered under the SCC Rules for Expedited Arbitration in 2016, an award was rendered within 3-6 months.
The most frequent applicable law in SCC cases commenced in 2016 was Swedish law (68%), followed by English law and Russian law.
The total amount of dispute for cases commenced in 2016 reached more than EUR 1.6 billion.
In most of the cases commenced in 2016, the amount of dispute was between EUR 100,000 - 500,000. Cases with the amount of dispute of between EUR 1 million - 5 million made up the second largest share.
Other than Swedish, English and Russian were the languages that were most used in SCC cases commenced in 2016.
In 77% of cases commenced in 2016, the parties have chosen Stockholm as the seat of arbitration. Meanwhile, Gothenburg and Malmö make up the second most frequently-chosen seats.
Most of the cases commenced in 2016 were disputes which arose from contracts dated the year before (2015), followed by contracts dated in 2014 and 2013.
If a decision on interim measures is needed to provisionally ensure a party's claim, before the commencement of an arbitration, the party may apply to the SCC for the appointment of an Emergency Arbitrator in accordance with the SCC Rules.
Thirteen emergency arbitrator proceedings were commenced at the SCC between in 2016, which was a sharp increase from the year before. In all cases, the emergency arbitrator was appointed within 24 hours. Most request for interim measures arose from dispute under a delivery agreement.
In 2016, most of interim measure request was granted by the emergency arbitrator. The form of the decision rendered was mostly an order, and the rest was an award.
In 64% of cases commenced in 2016 under the SCC Arbitration Rules, three arbitrators were appointed. In the rest of the cases, one arbitrator was appointed.
Arbitrators from Europe were appointed the most often in SCC cases commenced in 2016. However, those from Australia and Asia have also been appointed.
Of the total appointments of arbitrators in 2016, 16% was women arbitrator. Meanwhile, when the SCC made the appointment, women made up more than 20% of the appointment.
Among the sixteen challenges of arbitrator launched in 2016, almost 70% was rejected. Meanwhile, among the small number of request for release, half resulted in the resignation of the arbitrator and another half in the arbitrator being removed from the proceeding.