Originally from the Journal of Enforcement of Arbitration Awards

Preview Page

I. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the Swedish Supreme Court has decided a number of cases concerning the challenge and enforcement of arbitral awards. This article focuses on three such cases, which, together, can be seen as tilting the jurisprudence on post-award relief further in favor of preserving the finality of the award. Moreover, while the provisions in the Swedish Arbitration Act on challenge and enforcement do not completely mirror each other, the Supreme Court’s new case law may also be seen as a move towards a harmonized interpretation of the two sets of rules. 

The first case discussed is Belaya ptitsa-Kursk v. Robot Grader, a Swedish Supreme Court case reported as NJA 2018 p. 291 (“Robot Grader”), relating to the enforcement of an arbitral award issued under the auspices of the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. The question before the Supreme Court was whether there were grounds for refusing the application of the Russian company Belaya ptitsa-Kursk for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award on the basis that the other party, the Swedish company Robot Grader, had not been given an opportunity to present its case in the arbitration. Although the Court denied enforcement, it confirmed that the threshold for doing so is high.