Swedish Arbitration Portal: The challenging party failed to establish that the tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction was incorrect
The court’s starting point when reviewing the arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction is that the tribunal’s interpretation and evaluation of evidence is correct which limit the review to whether the challenging party has established that the tribunal has made an incorrect assessment of the scope of the arbitration agreement.
In a judgment by the Supreme Court of Sweden, recently published on the Swedish Arbitration Portal, the challenging party claimed that the award should be set aside as the arbitral tribunal hade exceeded its mandate by deciding on issues which were not covered by the arbitration agreement. The challenging party also claimed that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its mandate or committed a procedural error by not reviewing a disputed circumstance and that the tribunal had committed procedural errors by not giving the party the opportunity to sufficiently argue and present its case, and by rendering an arbitral award which was not based on the invoked evidence.
The Supreme Court found that the starting point when reviewing the arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction is that the tribunal’s interpretation and evaluation of evidence is correct. The review of the court shall therefore be limited to whether the party has established that the tribunal has made an incorrect assessment of the scope of the arbitration agreement.
The Supreme Court also found, amongst other things, that the effect of a procedural error must be of essential importance as such and of reasonable importance for the challenging party in relation to the part of the award that are subject to be set aside in order for the challenge to be successful.
The Supreme Court concluded that the challenging party had not established the asserted circumstances and rejected the challenge in its entirety.