In the case of <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Rodamco Projekt AB v Peab Sverige AB (Case No T 10465-23)</span>, the Svea Court of Appeal partially annulled an SEK1.5 billion construction award, including the tribunal's decision on cost allocation, but upheld the majority of the award. The court refused to reassess the tribunal's substantive findings.
The dispute arose from an SCC arbitration between Peab, a Swedish construction firm, and Rodamco, a subsidiary of a French real estate group, concerning the construction of a shopping centre. Peab sought additional payments, while Rodamco requested damages and penalties for delays in the work. The tribunal’s award partially supported both parties' claims.
Rodamco challenged the award before the Svea Court of Appeal, alleging several errors, including exceeding the tribunal’s mandate and procedural irregularities. The court granted Rodamco’s request to stay enforcement of the award while the challenge was being determined. Most of Rodamco's claims were dismissed by the court. Specifically, the court ruled that the tribunal had assessed the evidence and applied legal principles and whether the conclusions were correct pertained to the merits of the case, which fell outside the court's jurisdiction.
However, the court partially set aside the award concerning a contractual penalty claim for late completion. The tribunal had only partially granted this claim to Rodamco and the court found that the tribunal failed to fully consider Rodamco's arguments, which created a procedural error that likely influenced the outcome. The court determined that this part of the award could be separated from the rest, which should be upheld.
Regarding the tribunal’s decision on cost allocation, the court ruled that it would not be appropriate to partially set aside the decision. Instead, the future tribunal should determine how costs should be apportioned, as the court would need to make a substantive assessment of the costs between the various claims in the arbitration.
This decision reinforces Swedish courts' commitment to the principle of finality in arbitration, as seen in the court’s reluctance to review the tribunal's merit-based decisions or interfere with cost allocation. It also shows that Swedish courts will annul an award if a procedural irregularity affects the case outcome and clarifies when an award can be partially set aside.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Rodamco Projekt AB v Peab Sverige AB (Case No T 10465-23)</span> (Svea Court of Appeal) (28 May 2025)
