10 February 2016

The Supreme Court did not set aside an arbitration award

A new Supreme Court ruling concerning compensation for breach of a distributor agreement emphasises the binding character of awards.

Arbitration is characterised by the parties' agreement that disputes are to be settled by private arbitration instead of by the courts. However, this does not mean that the courts cannot become involved in the arbitration proceedings. For example, the courts may set aside an award as invalid even though this is a narrow exemption. This is illustrated by a new Supreme Court ruling. The ruling is interesting because it is quite seldom that the courts are given the opportunity to decide on questions concerning the setting aside of awards.

LIMITED POSSIBILITIES OF SETTING ASIDE

Section 37 of the Arbitration Act lays down the framework as to when the courts can set aside an award as invalid.
Under section 37, the courts may set aside an award in the following situations:

  • If one of the parties to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity, or if the agreement is invalid;
  • If the party claiming invalidity was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings or if the party was otherwise unable to present his case;
  • If the award deals with a dispute not covered by the arbitration agreement, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement;
  • If the composition of the arbitration tribunal or the arbitration procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the Arbitration Act;

In addition, the courts may, on their own initiative, set aside an award in the following situations:

  • If the subject-matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration;
  • If the award is manifestly contrary to the legal system (ordre public), which, according to the legislative history behind the Act, requires that the tribunal has made a very serious mistake.

SEVERAL REASONS FOR INVALIDITY IN PLAY BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT

In the specific award, the tribunal had decided that Taewoong Inc. was to pay DKK 20 million to AH Industries A/S as compensation for breach of a distributor agreement.
Taewoong Inc. then brought legal action before the courts claiming that the award was invalid and had to be set aside.

Taewoong Inc.'s argued the following:

  • That the award was contrary to fundamental principles as Taewoong Inc. had been prevented from presenting its views on important issues;
  • That the arbitration procedure was not in accordance with section 28 (3) of the Arbitration Act as the tribunal's measuring of compensation was based on an assessment of equity without the parties' consent;
  • That the tribunal's construction of the distributor agreement lied outside the framework of the claims and allegations made;
  • That the award was contrary to ordre public as it enforced the distributor agreement, which, according to Taewoong Inc., was contrary to EU competition law (article 101 of the TEUF on anti-competitive agreements).

THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT SET ASIDE THE AWARD

First of all, the Supreme Court noted that an award can only be set aside within the scope of section 37 of the Arbitration Act. This means that there is a prohibition against a substantive assessment, except in quite extraordinary situations where the award is manifestly contrary to ordre public.
Secondly, the Supreme Court made a specific assessment of each argument that Taewoong Inc. had made in support of the award being set aside.
The Supreme Court concluded that the tribunal had not set aside fundamental principles, the arbitration agreement or the Arbitration Acts' provisions on the procedure. This was justified by the fact that Taewoong Inc. had not substantiated that the tribunal's construction of the distributor agreement lied outside the framework of the claims and allegations made. The Supreme Court also concluded that the tribunal had not made an assessment based on equity.
Finally, the Supreme Court was to assess whether the tribunal, when assessing that the distributor agreement was contrary to article 101 of the TEUF on non-competitive agreements, had made a very serious mistake resulting in the award being manifestly contrary to the legal system in Denmark.
In this connection, Taewoong Inc. had requested that the question as to how intensely the Supreme Court was to determine whether article 101 of the TEUF had been violated, would be presented to the European Court of Justice, but the Supreme Court rejected this request as it believed, referring to a 1999 ruling, that there was no doubt as to the case law of the European Court of Justice's.

The Supreme Court found that even if article 101 of the TEUF must be enforced in the same way as a mandatory statutory rule according to the case law of the European Court of Justice, there were no grounds for establishing that the tribunal had made a very serious mistake, which made the award manifestly contrary to ordre public, and the Supreme Court did therefore not set aside the award.

COMMENTS

The ruling confirms that only in very seldom situations, an award can and should be set aside as invalid, and it also illustrates that it takes something extraordinary for the ruling in terms of substance to result in an award being set aside.
From an arbitral perspective, the ruling is welcomed as it emphasises the binding character of arbitration awards.

 

related news

Self-damage is (still) not considered damage caused by a defective product according to product liability law

21 September 2017

On 13 September 2017, the Supreme Court dismissed a claim for compensation against a manufacturer of marine engines for a shipping company’s loss as a consequence of wear damage to the marine engines.

Denmark accedes to the convention on jurisdiction

14 September 2017

On 30 May 2017, the Danish parliament adopted a bill stating that Denmark accedes to the Hague convention on jurisdiction of 30 June 2005 (the Convention on jurisdiction). The bill came into force on 1 July 2017.

Supplier of components wins long-term arbitration case

23 August 2017

Horten has conducted and won a comprehensive international arbitration case on behalf of Bollfilter Nordic ApS. Bollfilter Nordic ApS is part of the German group BOLL & KIRCH Filterbau GmbH, which is one of the world’s leading suppliers of filtration solutions, including to the maritime industry.

Baltic Gas Pipe Project continues

26 July 2017

Phase 1 of the Open Season 2017 for the Baltic Pipe Project showed sufficient demand for gas transportation – making it possible for the activities to continue.

White Paper concerning the data protection regulation has arrived

29 May 2017

The Ministry of Justice has now published the long awaited White Paper concerning the data protection regulation and the legal framework for Danish legislation in this respect.

Horten advances in new Chambers and Legal 500 rankings

19 April 2017

In 2017, the leading international ranking agencies, Legal 500 and Chambers, are once again ranking Horten among the best law firms in Denmark.

Four new specialised attorneys at Horten

7 March 2017

Horten has appointed four new specialised attorneys having in-depth professional and commercial expertise within personal data law, environmental and planning law, energy and supply law and tax law.

New action plan for the implementation of the regulation on data protection

30 January 2017

The Article 29 group has adopted a new action plan listing which subjects the group will prioritise in 2017 to ensure an effective implementation of the regulation on data protection.

Data protection officer – who, when, what?

12 January 2017

The so-called Article 29 group has adopted a set of guidelines covering data protection officers, which will provide more clarity with regard to the data protection officer's assignments, position and liability.

Global Leaders in Law appoints Horten as exclusive partner for Denmark

10 January 2017

Global Leaders in Law, the leading global general counsel forum based in London, and Horten has announced partnership. Appointed as a global bronze partner, Horten will sponsor the activities of Global Leaders in Law in 2017.

New partners

4 January 2017

With effect from 1 January 2017, Horten appointed Lars Lüneborg and Julie Arnth Jørgensen as partners.

Greenland adopts personal data act

22 November 2016

From 1 December 2016, the Personal Data Act became effective in Greenland at the request of the Greenland Home Rule. The Act replaces the data protection legislation from 1978, which has applied in Greenland until now.

Dynamic IP addresses may constitute personal data

19 October 2016

The European Court of Justice recently ruled in C-582/14 that a dynamic IP address may constitute personal data.

The Data Protection Agency: Understand the requirements for employees' processing of personal data

7 October 2016

In a recent decision, the Data Protection Agency criticised a municipality's control of the data security based on unauthorised persons' access to sensitive personal data stored on an employee's private IT equipment.

New partner

15 August 2016

Horten strengthens the partner group and the expertise within environmental and public law with the admission of partner Anne Sophie K. Vilsbøll.

New agreement on municipalities' economy in 2017

13 June 2016

The day after the Government and the Danish Regions presented an agreement on the regions' economy in 2017, it was published that the Government had also concluded an agreement with KL on the municipalities' economy in 2017.

Final adoption of the new personal data regulation

14 April 2016

The European Parliament has adopted the new personal data regulation together with the rest of the data protection reform.

Horten Corporate Day 2016 - Danish companies at the forefront

18 March 2016

At Horten's Corporate Day 2016 on 16 March, Danish and foreign executives and experts gave their views on the trends and opportunities of the Danish business sector. Horten will repeat the success next year with Horten Corporate Day 2017.

Publication of draft Privacy Shield between the EU and the USA

8 March 2016

At the beginning of February 2016, it was reported that the European Commission and the USA had politically agreed on a new scheme replacing the Safe Harbour scheme concerning transfer of personal data from the EU to the USA.

The Eastern High Court: Pressalit infringed Tivoli's trademark and breached the licence agreement

2 March 2016

In January 2016, the Eastern High Court ruled in the appeal proceedings between Tivoli A/S and Pressalit Group A/S.

Are you ready for the new personal data protection regulation?

24 February 2016

Does your company - private or public - meet the requirements of the applicable personal data act, and are you ready for the new amendments?

Dispute concerning cost-free loan guarantees to two district heating companies may be brought before the Supreme Court

23 February 2016

State subsidies: A dispute concerning cost-free loan guarantees to two district heating companies may be brought before the Supreme Court, but the municipal initiatives should continue.

Insurance broker avoided claim for compensation of more than DKK 1.7 million despite insufficient advice

18 February 2016

In a recent ruling, the Eastern High Court stated that insurance advice which is not in accordance with the Executive Order on the good practices of insurance brokers may form the basis of a claim for compensation.

The Eastern High Court: Label infringes design right

9 February 2016

Horten represented the manufacturer of a diaper pail, Sangenic, and the High Court ruled that the use of a picture of the design-protected pail constituted an infringement of the design right.

Political agreement on new EU-US privacy shield agreement

4 February 2016

A new political agreement between the European Court of Justice and the US is finalized, after the European Court of Justice set aside the the Safe Harbor scheme last year.