Procedural Principles - Chapter 6 - Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure

About the Author:
Lars Heuman is Professor of Procedural Law and Chairman of the Institute of Arbitration Law at the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Professor Heuman was a member of the committee that helped draft the Swedish Arbitration Act of 1999.

PDF159.31 KB

$40.00

Description:

Originally From Arbitration Law of Sweden: Practice and Procedure

Procedural Principles

6.1 Introduction

The conduct of arbitration disputes differs in many ways from civil proceedings. It is important that party representatives and arbitrators who often deal with judicial proceedings should try to take the opportunities which the Act provides for smooth, efficient management of the disputes and that they should not lapse into resolving procedural problems in the same way as the courts do. It is even more important that the arbitrators should avoid conducting the proceedings in such a way that the award may be set aside and expensive arbitral proceedings prove futile. There are also various ways in which the parties can help to avoid this kind of procedure.1 The Swedish Arbitration Act contains relatively few provisions on procedure and leaves many questions open. This being so, the party representatives and the arbitrators must have extensive knowledge of arbitration law to promote swift and appropriate procedure. Constructive thinking is often more important in arbitration disputes than in court proceedings.

Arbitral procedure is characterised by its adaptability to the distinctive circumstances of every dispute. This makes arbitration less formal than court proceedings. Procedural questions which are not governed by statutory provisions are left for the arbitrators to decide as they see fit. This discretionary right of the arbitrators to decide the procedure is limited, not only by the few peremptory rules of the Act, but also by the ability of the parties to agree how procedural questions are to be resolved. Thus party autonomy not only decides the jurisdiction of the arbitrators, which for example can be restricted or expanded as agreed between the parties, but also does a great deal to affect the procedure.

6.2 The principle of party autonomy

In arbitration disputes, the parties are at liberty to settle between themselves the questions which have been referred to the arbitrators. So it is logical that the parties should also be able to insist on the proceedings being conducted in the way they agree on.2

Table of Contents:

Chapter 6 Procedural Principles

6.1 Introduction

6.2 The principle of party autonomy

6.3 Mandatory rules of procedure

6.4 The principle of equal treatment of parties

6.5 The arbitrators' discretionary powers

6.6 Procedure aimed at preventing obstruction

6.7 Procedural liberties of the parties

6.8 The rule of waiver and the duty of a party to object to procedural errors

6.8.1 Functions of the waiver rule

6.8.2 At what point in time must a party state his objection to the procedure?

6.8.3 The requirement of double objections

6.8.4 Can preclusion occur when a party fails to investigate conditions constituting grounds for challenge?

6.8.5 How clear and exhaustive should a protest be?

6.8.6 Should the arbitrators inform a party of his duty to state an objection to irregularities?

6.8.7 The legal effects

6.8.8 Possibilities for a party to prevent a protesting opposing party from speculating at the party's expense

6.9 Analogous application of the rules of the Code of Judicial Procedure

6.10 Court intervention in arbitration proceedings requires statutory support