Baseball og voldgift. Hvad har de to ting med hinanden at gøre? Det handler om effektive og billigerealternativer til løsning af tvister. Det er en helt speciel bestemmelse, som findes i § 18 i Voldgiftsinstituttets nye regler om hurtig voldgiftskendelse, og som giver parterne mulighed for at få en hurtig og billig tvistløsning.

Men først historien bag den sportsinspirerede betegnelse. Den stammer fra amerikansk baseball, hvor metoden blev opfundet til brug for at afgøre uenighed mellem klubben og spilleren om størrelsen på spillerens løn. Metoden er en slags forligsværktøj, som også anvendes i andre meget anderledes sammenhænge, for eksempel når stater er uenige om retten til at beskatte.

Metoden går i korthed ud på, at hver part skriver sit forslag til en afgørelse i en lukket kuvert, som overdrages til voldgiftsdommeren. Voldgiftsdommerens opgave er herefter at vælge det forslag, som voldgiftsdommeren finder, er den mest rimelige løsning på tvisten. Voldgiftsdommeren har ikke mulighed for at fremkomme med sit eget kompromisforslag, men skal vælge et af parternes forslag, som herefter stadfæstes i en voldgiftskendelse på aftalte vilkår, sådan at afgørelsen får status som enhver anden voldgiftskendelse med de fordele, som det indebærer. Det gælder for eksempel, at afgørelsen kan fuldbyrdes ved domstolene. Hvis voldgiftsdommeren ikke mener, at nogen af parternes forslag er egnede som løsning på tvisten, har voldgiftsdommeren mulighed for at henvise parterne til at søge tvisten løst efter andre regler.

Med § 18 i instituttets nye regler om hurtig voldgiftskendelse er der mulighed for at afgøre relativt simple tvister, for eksempel om størrelsen på et pengekrav, om et krav er forældet eller om en frist er sprunget, hvis parterne er enige om, at tvisten skal afgøres på denne måde. Bestemmelsen i § 18 er primært møntet på mindre komplekse tvister, og indebærer at parterne kan få løst tvisten hurtigt og effektivt og på en omkostningsbevist måde.

Find reglerne for hurtig voldgiftskendelse Hurtig voldgiftskendelse | Voldgiftsinstituttet

General Secretary Steffen Pihlblad participated as arbitrator in the Plesner Pre-Moot 2023 in Copenhagen. He was in good company with many experienced arbitrators and very talented students from Danish universities and universities from abroad. The DIA, who is a proud and longtime sponsor of the Vis Moot in Vienna, wishes all the students at the Plesner Pre-Moot the best of luck in Vienna. Kudos to Plesner, especially Rikke Kjeldsen, Jimmy Skjold Hansen and Peter Schradieck for setting the scene in Copenhagen.

Read more Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot – Vis Moot

How do you get your first case as arbitrator? This is a frequent question. In response, there are two principal steps of the DIA selection process: becoming known to the DIA, and having the required experience and background for a case.

However suitable someone may be for a case, one cannot be selected if the DIA is not aware of you. Becoming known to the DIA can happen in various ways. New names may come to the DIA’s attention owing to publications, speaking engagements, word of mouth and similar. In Denmark, Erhvervsjuridisk Tidsskrift is often an option for arbitration articles. Speaking and networking – whether as speaker or not – at events such as those held by Young Arbitrators Copenhagen and the Danish Arbitration Association, also raises one’s profile. Direct contact with the DIA accompanied by a CV can raise one’s profile as well but if CVs are sent, they should be tailored to the DIA, to its rules and services, and updated at regular intervals. The DIA does not use a panel system.

Of course, publication, networking and sending CVs do not guarantee appointment. Once the DIA is aware of you, the DIA must be confident that you have the experience and background required for the case, and that you are an appropriate person in the circumstances to handle the case. The DIA’s analysis includes what is often detailed in a CV, such as:

1. Nationalities – many arbitral institutes, not least the DIA, have nationality requirements to support independence and impartiality.
2. Domicile – linked to nationality, domicile can also raise independence and impartiality issues.
3. Academic qualifications – a law degree is a necessity for sole arbitrators and chairs, and multinational qualifications, for instance a mix of common and civil law, can help one to stand out in an international case.
4. Professional qualifications – these include arbitrator training programmes, such as the ones provided by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators and the Association of Danish Law Firms.
5. Jurisdictions qualified in and experience of other jurisdictions – one does not have to be qualified in a jurisdiction to have insight into a jurisdiction’s approach.
6. Professional experience – detailing one’s sector experience assists the DIA in matching potential arbitrators with disputes in which they are experts.
7. Roles undertaken – roles not just as arbitrator, but also as counsel, tribunal secretary and institute employee assist to understand the background of a potential arbitrator.
8. Languages – the more languages one is proficient in, the more cases one can potentially be considered for.
9. Publications and speaking engagements – the more publications and speaking engagements one has, particularly in well-known journals, for renowned publishers and at prominent events, the more evidence the DIA has to consider whether someone has the required experience.
10. Participation in arbitration organisations and the Vis Moot – if one participates in arbitration organisations and events such as the Vis Moot, one can more easily demonstrate that one has sufficient interest and experience in arbitration.

The DIA’s analysis also includes whether one has a professional and courteous reputation, keeps to deadlines, is technologically-savvy, has an eye for detail and places paramount importance on neutrality.

The DIA welcomes CVs from a diverse range of potential arbitrators.

Claus Søgaard-Christensen har medieret alt fra konflikter om trecifrede millionbeløb til sager, hvor der var væsentligt mindre på spil. Uanset hvor mange penge, det drejer sig om, er der næsten altid en psykologisk side af sagen, hvor parterne er gået helt skævt af hinanden. Med mediationen kommer de videre sammen.

Alle typer af sager egner sig til mediation. Det er Claus Søgaard-Christensens klare overbevisning. Selv medierer han typisk komplekse erhvervssager.

”I mine øjne er både mediation og retsmæglig præcis lige så effektivt som domstolsprøvelse, hvis begge parter er interesserede i at løse sagen, for eksempel fordi udsigten til en kostbar og drænende retssag vil være alternativet,” siger Claus Søgaard-Christensen.

På grund af sin tavshedspligt kan han ikke fortælle om konkrete sager, men han arbejder eksempelvis med større byggesager, hvor samarbejdet er gået skævt, og hvor den ene part nu står tilbage med en række klagepunkter over resultatet.

”En sag starter med, at parterne laver en aftale om, at de ønsker mediation og hvilke regler, konflikten skal løses efter. Det kan for eksempel være Voldgiftsinstituttets regler om mediation, der sætter en ramme for forhandlingen. Det er typisk parternes advokater, der får aftalen på plads, og de beskriver også selve sagen, så jeg har mulighed for at danne mig et overblik over konflikten, inden vi mødes første gang.”

Selve mødelokalerne er i sig selv et vigtig parameter for en vellykket mediation, mener Claus Søgaard-Christensen, for forhandlingerne skal foregå et neutralt sted, hvor der er mindst to og helst tre lokaler til rådighed. Et hvor alle parter kan samles og et til hvert hold.

”Jeg blander mig ikke i, hvem der deltager på hver side i sagen og heller ikke hvor mange, der deltager. Det kan være parterne, deres advokater og eksperter som for eksempel økonomichefen, projektlederen eller en sælger. Undertiden vil der være fem til ti deltagere på hver side i de større sager. For mig er det væsentligste, at der mindst er en person med, der i sidste ende kan sige ja eller nej. For selve forhandlingen er nytteløs, hvis der i løbet af mediationen ikke er mulighed for at indgå en bindende aftale. Hvis det er sådan, at en aftale skal forbi en direktion eller bestyrelse, inden den kan lukkes endeligt, så skal det være helt klart fra starten, sådan at der er transparens for alle.”

Første møde

Når rammen er sat, og første møde starter, træder Claus Søgaard-Christensen ind i rummet med, hvad han betegner som åbenhed og nysgerrighed. For nogen egentlig manual for mediation har han ikke.

”Jeg ved aldrig, hvordan en mediation udvikler sig. Selvom jeg i sin tid har taget mediation-uddannelsen og kender de teoretiske principper, så sætter det alene en retning for mit arbejde. Jeg arbejder mere med min intuition i kombination med en undren over, hvad der er sket mellem parterne,” siger Claus Søgaard-Christensen, der som det første beder parterne præsentere sagen, når alle er samlet.

”Hver part får et antal minutter til at redegøre for sagen, og hvor de ser problemerne ligger. Men ret hurtigt får jeg parterne i enrum, og her taler jeg med dem på skift – men fortæller selvfølgelig ikke den ene part, hvad den anden har sagt, medmindre det er aftalt. På den måde har jeg fortrolighed med begge parter undervejs i processen,” siger Claus Søgaard-Christensen, der efterhånden som mediationen skrider frem får et indtryk af, hvilke fælles linjer der er i sagen.

”I første fase skal jeg først og fremmest forstå, hvad er gået galt. Jævnligt har konflikten sine rødder i personlige uoverensstemmelser eller tidligere hændelser, der har givet anledning til mistro. Jeg fanger som regel hurtigt, hvad der er i spil, og det er vigtigt, fordi det har indflydelse på den faktiske konflikt, der skal løses. Så der er en god portion psykologi i sagen, som giver det, man kan kalde rentetilskrivninger – altså at mistro og skuffelser på sigt gør parterne mindre tolerante. De færreste konflikter bliver ikke så låste, hvis parterne håndterer problemerne undervejs. Derfor er det vigtigt at tale om, hvad parterne kunne have løst løbende i stedet for, at de nu står her uden at kunne holde hinanden ud,” siger Claus Søgaard-Christensen, der også tager en god portion nysgerrighed med ind i mediationen.

”Altså en interesse i at finde ud af, hvorfor parterne er kommet så langt ud. Jeg skal ikke være stædig og vil sige, at det er vigtigere at være vedholdende og teste, om det kan lade sig gøre at flytte opfattelserne af hinanden. Det gør jeg for eksempel ved at spørge ind til, hvordan den ene part ville handle, hvis vedkommende sad i modpartens stol. Men altså helt grundlæggende er jeg påpasselig med ikke at presse parterne for langt ud.”

Grundlaget for en aftale

Så snart Claus Søgaard-Christensen har et fuldstændig klart billede af den reelle problemstilling, herunder den psykologiske del af konflikten, mødes han med begge parter i samme rum for at få en aftale på plads.

”Så snart jeg et tydeligt billede af alle brikkerne, er det nemmere for mig at skabe grundlaget for at få en aftale på plads. På det tidspunkt i processen indser den ene part måske, at man slås om de sidste 100.000 kroner, fordi der i virkeligheden er noget andet, der nager. Derfor er det ikke længere så afgørende at stå fast – men vigtigere at kunne komme videre.”

I det hele taget er spørgsmålet om procesøkonomi noget, som Claus Søgaard-Christensen trækker ind i sagen.

”Jeg henleder parternes opmærksomhed på, hvad det koster at gennemføre en retssag sammenlignet med, det beløb som parterne er uenige om. Der er sjældent en vinder, hverken i mediation eller i retssager, hvor der også er en risiko for, at du ikke får det beløb, som du stiller krav om, fordi dommeren ikke mener, at du har bevis for de sidste 20 procent. Hvis parterne kan forstå det og har lysten til at få afsluttet sagen for at spare sig selv, virksomheden og medarbejdere for både ventetid, penge og bekymringer, så kan de begge gå ud af mediationen med oprejst pande og mulighed for at bruge deres energi på fremtiden. På at komme videre.

Claus Søgaard-Christensen

Advokat, erfaren mediator og voldgiftsdommer i blandt andet sager under Voldgiftsinstituttet. Tidligere retsmægler. Han har gennemført mere end 200 mediationer og retsmæglinger.

”Så snart jeg har et tydeligt billede af alle brikkerne, er det nemmere for mig at skabe grundlaget for at få en aftale på plads. På det tidspunkt i processen indser den ene part måske, at man slås om de sidste 100.000 kroner, fordi der i virkeligheden er noget andet, der nager. Derfor er det ikke længere så afgørende at stå fast – men vigtigere at kunne komme videre.”

Domstolssystemet er presset, og der kan være lang ventetid på den dom, der får parterne til at komme videre. Men der er gode muligheder for at opsøge alternativer som mediation og voldgift. Et forslag til en regulering af mediation er undervejs.

En konflikt mellem to parter er tidskrævende og giver kun anledning til bekymringer. Det gælder, uanset om det er virksomheder, der er uenige om, hvad de har aftalt, eller det er parcelhusejeren, der har haft vand i kælderen og nu slås med sit forsikringsselskab om skadesdækningen.

Det mener Christian Lundblad, der er retspræsident ved Retten på Frederiksberg og medlem af Voldgiftsinstituttets bestyrelse. Men han erkender også, at domstolene er pressede til det yderste med flere sager, end der er ressourcer til at løse, og at det i praksis betyder, at civile sager kan være tre år undervejs, før parterne står med en endelig afgørelse.

Som medlem af Rørdamudvalget, er han derfor for øjeblikket i fuld gang med at se på, hvordan domstolene kan blive mere effektive.

”En økonomisk indsprøjtning gør det nok ikke alene. Derfor ser jeg også et potentiale i, at en del af løsningen kan være, at mulighederne bliver bedre for forligsmæssige løsninger, der sikrer et godt samarbejde mellem parterne i fremtiden,” siger han.

”Som det er nu, er retterne fra politisk side pålagt at prioritere straffesagerne. Det er selvfølgelig vigtigt at få afgjort sager, hvor der er fængselsstraf i spil, men for mig som retspræsident er alle konflikter lige vigtige. I et samfund er det nemlig helt grundlæggende, at borgerne kan få løst deres konflikter indenfor rimelig tid over en helt bred front,” forklarer han.

Christian Lundblad har arbejdet med mediation i mere end 20 år, og ser en oplagt mulighed for at tilpasse det danske retssystem, sådan at parterne i en retssag altid kan træde til side for at undersøge, om de kan løse sagen i mindelighed.

”Det vil spare tid og penge. En mediation – uanset om det sker i domstolsregi eller i det private – har fokus på det fremadrettede og giver parterne mulighed for at komme videre sammen. Det letter også parterne, for der er en psykologisk faktor ved at have en sag om uenigheder fra fortiden kørende ved domstolene. Med justering af det danske retssystem ved at gøre brug af mediation – også i det private regi – kan samfundet satse mere på udvikling og fremtidige fælles opgaver,” siger han og tilføjer:

”Voldgift har eksisteret i langt mere end 100 år og er en velanset og kendt metode til konfliktløsning i hele verden. Det bliver primært anvendt mellem virksomheder, der kan vælge dommerne ud fra specialer, såsom entreprise- og IT-sager. Hvis der er en international vinkel på en sag, er fordelen også, at valg af dommere falder på andre jurisdiktioner end parternes. Det giver en tryghed.”

Men hvad skal der til for at løfte sager fra domstolssystemet over i mediation og voldgift?

”Det kræver at parterne aftaler det. Det er ikke altid, at der er en åbning for at få en aftale på plads, fordi den ene part gerne vil have sagen afgjort hurtigt, mens modparten har knap så travlt med det. Men verden står stille under en konflikt, og derfor har advokaterne en vigtig opgave med at skabe forståelse for fordelene ved henholdsvis domstolsbehandling, voldgift og mediation. Det oplever jeg faktisk at mange allerede har, og at virksomhederne er blevet dygtige til at lukke deres konflikter hurtigt, netop fordi de erkender, at de kun bliver fattigere af at leve med uløste konflikter,” siger Christian Lundblad, der også tror at regulering af mediation, som er i støbeskeen, kan skabe en større tryghed omkring ordningen, der er langt mere anvendt i Danmarks nabolande samt ikke mindst USA og England.

Verden står stille under en konflikt, og derfor har advokaterne en vigtig opgave med at skabe forståelse for fordelene ved henholdsvis domstolsbehandling, voldgift og mediation.

Christian Lundblad, retspræsident og medlem af voldgiftsinstituttets bestyrelse

I dag skal virksomhederne vente op til tre år for at få løst tvister ved domstolene. Ved voldgift og mediation er tidsperspektivet meget anderledes. Den gennemsnitlige varighed af en dansk voldgiftssag er 11 måneder. Er parterne enige om, at tvisten skal afgøres efter nye ”fast track”-regler eller reglerne om mediation, kan sagen sluttes hurtigere. Derfor er det oplagt at lade mediation og voldgift være en del af svaret på det store samfundsmæssige problem, som de lange ventetider ved domstolene er, mener Voldgiftsinstituttets generalsekretær.

Af Steffen Pihlblad, generalsekretær, Voldgiftsinstituttet

”En økonomisk indsprøjtning gør det nok ikke alene. Derfor ser jeg også et potentiale i, at en del af løsningen kan være, at mulighederne bliver bedre for forligsmæssige løsninger, der sikrer et godt samarbejde mellem parterne i fremtiden.”

Sådan lyder det fra Christian Lundblad, retspræsident og medlem af Voldgiftsinstituttets bestyrelse, i denne udgave af nyhedsbrevet.

De lange ventetider ved domstolene er et samfundsproblem, som skal tages alvorligt. Der findes heldigvis løsninger på problemet. Løsninger, som vi i Voldgiftsinstituttet kan være en del af.

I dag skal virksomhederne vente op til tre år for at få løst tvister ved domstolene. Ved voldgift og mediation er tidsperspektivet meget anderledes. Den gennemsnitlige varighed af en dansk voldgiftssag er 11 måneder. Hvis parterne bliver enige om, at tvisten skal afgøres efter et af instituttets ”fast track”-tilbud eller efter reglerne om mediation, kan sagsbehandlingstiden reduceres yderligere.

Virksomhederne behøver altså ikke at stille sig op i en længere kø for at få afgjort deres tvister, hvis de i stedet aftaler, at tvisten løses ved Voldgiftsinstituttet. Og er det dyrere? Ikke nødvendigvis. Parterne skal ganske vist betale voldgiftsdommernes og instituttets honorar, og ikke kun retsafgifterne. Men disse udgifter udgør kun en mindre del af de samlede udgifter for at få behandlet tvisten. Dertil kommer, at en voldgift alene behandles i en enkelt instans, hvorfor der ikke skal bruges tid og omkostninger til en eventuel appel. Man kan danne sig et hurtigt overblik over udgifterne til voldgiftsdommerne og instituttet via omkostningsberegneren på www.voldgiftsinstitutttet.dk.

Voldgift indebærer desuden en række velkendte fordele i forhold til domstolsbehandling. Parterne kan for eksempel vælge specialiserede dommere, ligesom voldgiftsrettens kendelse – i modsætning til en dom afsagt af en dansk domstol – kan fuldbyrdes over det meste af verden.

Det kan også anbefales, at virksomhederne afsøger muligheden for at få løst tvisten via mediation, som er en hurtigere, billigere og mere uformel proces. Vores erfaring er, at selv nok så fastlåste tvister kan løses via mediation. I Danmark findes der mange mediatorer med stor erfaring. Læs for eksempel interviewet med Claus Søgaard-Christensen i denne udgave af nyhedsbrevet. Interviewet giver indblik i, hvordan en mediator arbejder.

Voldgiftsinstituttets generalsekretær Steffen Pihlblad var 6. februar blandt indlægsholderne ved Voldgiftsforeningens velbesøgte arrangement om brugen af virtuelle mundtlige forhandlinger. Erfaringerne med virtuelle forhandlinger under Corona-nedlukningen har været overraskende gode. Alligevel har aktørerne i voldgiftssagerne i tiden efter Corona været hurtige til igen at foretrække fysiske forhandlinger.
En virtuel forhandling er sædvanligvis et effektivt og bekvemt alternativ til en fysisk forhandling, hvor der samtidig spares tid og omkostninger til blandt andet rejse, ophold og mødelokaler. I sit indlæg opfordrede Steffen Pihlblad blandt andet til, at parterne i alle sager overvejer, om der med fordel kan gennemføres en virtuel forhandling i stedet for en fysisk forhandling. Det kan for eksempel være tilfældet, hvis sagen ikke står og falder med afhøring af ekspertvidner, hvilket kan være en særlig udfordring, når forhandlingen foregår virtuelt.
På mødet var der også indlæg fra Torben Bondrop og Dan Terkildsen, der begge fortalte om deres erfaringer med virtuelle forhandlinger. Med udgangspunkt i bogen Digital Hearings, som udkom sidste år på forlaget Norstedts Juridik, gennemgik en af bogens forfattere, Bruno Gustafsson fra Roschier, forskellige aspekter af best practice ved afholdelsen af virtuelle forhandlinger. Han pegede blandt andet på dilemmaet mellem på den ene side at sikre, at en virtuel forhandling foregår i overensstemmelse med ”due process” og på den anden side at forhandlingen nogle gange blev ledsaget af alt for detaljerede protokoller om, hvordan forhandling skulle gennemføres, herunder for eksempel regler om hvilken dresscode som skal gælde for deltagerne i forhandlingen.

Tak til Voldgiftsforeningen og tak til Plesner for at lægge lokaler til.

De fleste virksomheder tænker pr. automatik, at konflikter skal løses ved domstolene. Men der findes en række alternative muligheder for tvistløsning ud over det almindelige retssystem. Disse alternativer kan være en genvej til at få løst konflikten og dermed give hurtigere mulighed for at komme videre. Ud over almindelig voldgift, gælder det blandt andet mægling og forskellige andre former for fast track processer. Det fortæller generalsekretær Steffen Pihlblad om hos Bech-Bruun Academy 6. marts i København og den 7. marts i Aarhus.
”Det er altid en god idé at undersøge alternative muligheder for løsning af konflikter, som både er hurtigere og billigere at gennemføre end en sag ved domstolene. Det kan være Voldgiftsinstituttets nye regler om hurtig voldgiftskendelse, som indebærer en hurtigere afgørelse end, hvad der følger efter instituttets almindelige regler, uden at det sker på bekostning af grundlæggende voldgiftsretlige principper. Desuden indeholder reglerne et helt nyt forligsværktøj, som indebærer, at parterne hurtigere og billigere kan nå i mål med en løsning,” siger Voldgiftsinstituttets generalsekretær, Steffen Pihlblad, der på kurset går i dybden med, hvilke overvejelser der bør gøres i forbindelse med brugen af alternativer til traditionel tvistløsning.

Advokatforeningerne i Esbjerg, Horsens, Kolding og Aabenraa og Voldgiftsinstituttet inviterer til gå-hjem-møde 22. februar 2023 klokken 13.30 til 16.30 om Voldgiftsinstituttets nyeste regler for behandling af voldgiftssager. Her vil advokat Jacob Møller Dirksen, partner hos Accura, medlem af Voldgiftsinstituttets bestyrelse og Voldgiftsinstituttets generalsekretær Steffen Pihlblad gennemgå de væsentligste ændringer i reglerne samt orientere om de seneste nyheder ved instituttet.

Det vil være rig lejlighed til at stille spørgsmål til reglerne, om voldgift og anden tvistløsning ved Voldgiftsinstituttet generelt. Deltagelse er gratis og kurset giver tre lektioner til den obligatoriske efteruddannelse. Mødet foregår hos Andersen Partners, Buen 11, 6. sal, 6000 Kolding.

Tilmelding skal ske på mail: event@andersen-partners.dk.

Find mere praktisk info på www.andersen-partners.dk

Børsen i hjertet af København bliver 5. oktober 2023 rammen om dette års Copenhagen Arbitration Day, der samler voldgiftseksperter fra hele verden for at debattere og inspirere hinanden fagligt.

”Copenhagen Arbitration Day er vigtig for det internationale voldgiftsmiljøs opmærksomhed og forståelse af, at Norden bestemt er andet end Stockholm. Det er desuden en god måde at skabe grundlag for danske aktørers netværk og sidst, men ikke mindst, så er det et format, der kan trække internationale topprofiler til som talere, hvilket kan inspirere fagligt.”

Sådan lød det fra advokat René Offersen i seneste nummer af nyhedsbrevet. Han var for ICC Danmark sammen med Voldgiftsinstituttets generalsekretær Steffen Pihlblad Co-chair ved Copenhagen Arbitration Day 2022, der samlede mere end 200 deltagere fra ind- og udland i DI’s lokaler på Rådhuspladsen.

Læs eller genlæs interviewet med René Offersen i Voldgiftsinstituttets nyhedsbrev.

Feedback gør os bedre. Derfor inviterer Voldgiftsinstituttet alle, der har været part i en voldgift ved instituttet, til at deltage i en evaluering.

Hvad enten en voldgiftssag sluttes med forlig eller ved kendelse, sender instituttet ved afslutningen af sagen et evalueringsskema til advokaterne i sagen. Skemaet indeholder spørgsmål om voldgiftsrettens håndtering af sagen, instituttets ydelser samt omkostningerne forbundet med gennemførelsen af sagen. Den del af skemaet, som vedrører voldgiftsrettens håndtering, indgår i instituttets overvejelser ved fremtidige udpegninger af voldgiftsdommere.

”Vi har selvfølgelig forståelse for, at evalueringen ikke altid er det, der bliver prioriteret højest, når sagen er afsluttet. Men jeg vil alligevel meget gerne opfordre til, at advokaterne og deres klienter bruger nogle minutter på at udfylde skemaet, fordi vi har brug for feedback for at blive bedre. Som det er i dag, får vi for få skemaer retur, men vi hører gerne, hvad holdningen er til alt fra sagsbehandlingen, voldgiftsrettens begrundelse i kendelsen og mødefaciliteter til forplejning og tekniske faciliteter,” siger Voldgiftsinstituttets generalsekretær, Steffen Pihlblad, der tilføjer, at det også gælder sager, som forhandles på hoteller.

”På den måde får vi langt bedre forudsætninger for at booke lokaler på de hoteller, som formår at skabe de bedste rammer om gennemførelse af sagerne.”

Voldgiftsinstituttet evalueringsskemaer er målrettet voldgifts- og mediationssager, men instituttets brugere i andre sagstyper er også altid mere end velkomne til at give deres mening til kende, og herunder fremkomme med forslag til forbedringer. Dette kan ske ved at sende en e-mail til Steffen Pihlblad på spi@voldgiftsinstituttet.dk.

Diversity in the arbitrator pool assists in the selection of the best arbitrator for the benefit of the parties. For the year 2022, approximately 21 percent of all the arbitrator appointments at the DIA were female. Out of the arbitrators appointed by the parties, approximately 6 percent were female and out of the arbitrators appointed by the DIA, approximately 33 percent were female.

Diversity in the arbitrator pool not only assists in the selection of the best arbitrator for the benefit of the parties, it also assists in ensuring the quality both of the arbitral process and of awards. The DIA aims to increase the percentage of appointed female arbitrators directly and indirectly. The direct approach is that when the DIA considers candidates for arbitrator appointment, it continues its practice of considering at least one, if not more, female candidates. The indirect approach is twofold: to increase the general visibility of female candidates and to encourage parties to consider more female candidates.

One example of how the DIA increases the general visibility of female candidates is by its participating in initiatives, that champion gender diversity, such as the Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge. Further to the Pledge, the DIA works towards an outcome where its committees, governing bodies, and conference panels include a fair representation of female individuals.

The DIA encourages parties to consider more female candidates and invites a discussion within the arbitration community to understand the reasons why more female arbitrators are not being appointed by parties. For instance, there is often the argument that to select the best candidate as arbitrator, one must select the candidate with the “decades-long” experience and that there are too few female individuals with such experience. Notwithstanding that there are many female individuals who have such experience, and the number is increasing, what makes one the best candidate in one arbitration may not be the same in another arbitration. Having “decades-long” experience may not always mean the best candidate. In certain cases, availability, prompt response-time, technological proficiency, and thoroughness may have greater weight.

Gender is not the only form of diversity but is the present focus. The DIA welcomes discussion on all forms of diversity and looks forward to developing best practice.

Plesner afholder igen i år Pre-Moot for jurastuderende fra hele verden. Det er her, fremtidens voldgiftsadvokater opdager sig selv, får troen på at de kan procedere og lærer at samarbejde. Men også advokaterne høster gode erfaringer, når ”mooties” fra nær og fjern tester deres argumenter inden hovedkonkurrencen i Wien.  Rikke Silke Kjeldsen, som er tovholder på Plesners Pre-Moot, har selv en international baggrund, der startede i Paris.

Selvom der stadig er nogle måneder, indtil godt 350 universiteter sender deres hold af jurastuderende til Vis Moot konkurrencen i Wien til april, er der allerede nu stor aktivitet hos Plesner, der for femte gang arrangerer Pre-Moot i Kobbertårnet på Østerbro i København.

Her samler advokatvirksomheden voldgiftseksperter og jurastuderende fra både Danmark og udlandet for at træne deltagerne til den mundtlige del af processen. Derudover er Plesners team coaches for Københavns Universitets Vis-Moot deltagere, og vejleder dem igennem den skriftlige og mundtlige del af konkurrencen – ligesom virksomheden i en årrække har sendt en delegation af medarbejdere til hovedkonkurrencen i Wien for at være med som voldgiftsdommere og deltage i de faglige og sociale arrangementer, som foregår i forbindelse med Vis Moot.  Det er en udviklings- og læringsproces – både for de studerende og for Plesners eget team, mener advokat Rikke Silke Kjeldsen, der er tovholder på Plesner Pre-Moot, og som til daglig beskæftiger sig med blandt andet voldgift.

”Hele projektet går ud på at uddanne og udvikle både deltagerne og os selv. For de studerende handler det om at lære at skrive processkrifter og procedere – men også om at samarbejde. De opdager, at de kan meget mere, end de tror. For os er det selvfølgelig spændende at se, hvilke nye vinkler på problemstillingerne og tilgange til at løse casen der opstår undervejs. Så ja, vi lærer også selv noget,” siger Rikke Silke Kjeldsen.

Et community der starter på Østerbro

Selvom hun og hendes kolleger er faste vejledere for Københavns Universitets team, lægger man stor vægt på, at studerende fra universiteter i hele verden kan komme i spil som deltagere i Pre-Moot’et på Østerbro. Knap 50 universiteter søger hvert år om at blive en del af Pre-Moot’et, 10-12 udvælges ud fra kriterier som diversitet og geografi.

”Hele Vis Moot-konceptet har udviklet sig over årene og samler i dag voldgiftsinteresserede fra hele verden. På den måde er der opstået et community, som for os starter her på Østerbro, hvor vi også trækker på gode kræfter hos kolleger fra andre advokatkontorer, og som når sit højdepunkt på dagene i Wien, hvor der også er masser af muligheder for at deltage i både konferencer om voldgift og netværk.”

Det var også her, at Rikke Silke Kjeldsen for seks år siden mødte Plesners Vis Moot delegation, der blev indgangen til at flytte sit arbejdsliv fra Paris til København, hvor hun i dag overvejende beskæftiger sig med store, internationale voldgiftssager.

”Jeg har læst jura i Paris, hvor jeg boede en periode. Senere tog jeg min kandidat ved The University of Edinburgh i Skotland, og blev færdig i 2012, hvor jeg fik job hos ICC i Paris. Jeg har efterfølgende også læst jura i Danmark, og i dag sidder jeg med på store, tunge sager, hvor jeg både får indsigt i mange sektorer og typer af tvister.  Selvfølgelig er der en forløsning i at løse konflikter. Men man skal have smag for processen og for at skabe noget sammen med andre. Præcis som i Vis Moot.

Rikke Silke Kjeldsen

Advokat, Plesner, med speciale i tvisteløsning og voldgift. Tovholder på Plesners Pre-Moot program, der har til formål at træne jurastuderende fra ind- og udland til Vis Moot konkurrencen, der altid finder sted i påskeugen i Wien.

Omkostninger i voldgiftssager vs. retssager

Tilkendelse af sagsomkostninger i voldgift afgøres ud fra andre parametre end hos de almindelige domstole. Hovedreglen er fuld dækning ved fuldt medhold. Det er en af fordelene ved voldgift, mener Managing Partner, Torben Bang, der dog oplever, at tilgangen til at fastsætte beløbet kan være afhængig af, hvilke dommere der afgør sagen. En ændring af Voldgiftsinstituttets regler for behandling af voldgiftssager fra 2021 viser vejen for, hvordan omkostninger skal vurderes.

Tiden er løbet fra de takster, som de almindelige domstole tilkender omkostninger efter. Ressourceforbruget i selv de mest effektive processer står ofte i klart misforhold til omkostningsgodtgørelsen, og det efterlader meget ofte den vindende part med markante udækkede sagsomkostninger.

Det mener Managing Partner hos SKOV Advokater, Torben Bang, der oplever en tendens til, at dette regime tages med ind i voldgiftsretterne i de tilfælde, hvor voldgiftsrettens medlemmer kommer fra det ordinære retssystem.

”Når vi vælger voldgift som tvistløsning, så skyldes det primært tre ting: Tvisten bliver løst hurtigt og effektivt, afgørelsen er fortrolig og endelig er der en mere kommerciel og tidssvarende tilgang til tilkendelse af sagsomkostninger. Men på det seneste har jeg i to sager oplevet, at tilkendelsen af sagsomkostninger er ude af trit med de ressourcer, der med rette er brugt på sagerne,” siger Torben Bang, der peger på, at årsagen måske findes hos dommerne.

”I begge sager deltog dommere fra det almindelige domstolssystem, hvor der er tradition for at vurdere sagsomkostninger mere ud fra sagens økonomiske værdi frem for sagens forløb. Men hvis sagens kompleksitet ikke indgår i overvejelserne, er det min erfaring, at der kan være meget langt fra de reelle udgifter til de sagsomkostninger, der bliver tildelt,” siger Torben Bang, der finder det retssikkerhedsmæssigt skævt, at den klient, der anlægger en sag og får ret, står tilbage med et økonomisk smæk.

”I det ordinære domstolssystem betyder det som bekendt, at man både som forurettet part og advokat altid overvejer, om det kan betale sig at tage en sag, hvor måske en tiendedel af de reelle omkostninger bliver dækket – også selvom du ikke engagerer den dyreste advokat i landet. Den problematik skulle nødigt også gælde voldgiftssagerne.”

Udgangspunktet er fuld dækning

 Jacob Møller Dirksen, som er medlem af Voldgiftsinstituttets bestyrelse, var med til at ændre instituttets regler for behandling af voldgiftssager i 2021 for endeligt at gøre op med tidligere tiders praksis fra de almindelige domstole om at lade sagens økonomiske genstand være det væsentligste pejlemærke ved fastsættelsen af sagsomkostninger. Med de nye regler er det udgangspunktet, at fuldt medhold er lig med fuld dækning af omkostningerne i sagen.

”Med de nye regler forventes den tidligere praksis at være et overstået kapitel, hvilket alle voldgiftsdommere i instituttets regi skal forholde sig til. Selvfølgelig har advokaterne, der fører voldgiftssagerne, også et ansvar for at være opmærksomme på det og gøre noget ud af spørgsmålet om sagsomkostninger over for voldgiftsretten. Sådan er de danske regler nu – og det samme gælder i voldgift internationalt,” fastslår Jacob Møller Dirksen, der henviser til en sag, som blev ført ved Voldgiftsinstituttet med en belgisk voldgiftsdommer, hvor klageren fik medhold i 92 procent af sin påstand, og derfor fik tilkendt 92 procent af sine faktiske omkostninger.

”At tage et klart udgangspunkt i de afholdte udgifter er en udvikling, vi har set i dansk voldgift de senere år, og det harmonerer med tilgangen internationalt.  Og ja, det kan gøre en kæmpe forskel i forhold til de ordinære domstole, hvor klienten, som får medhold i sine påstande, på trods af faktiske omkostninger på for eksempel en eller to millioner kroner let kan risikere alene at få tilkendt 300.000,” forklarer Jacob Møller Dirksen, der er opmærksom på, at nogle voldgiftsdommere fortsat har en tendens til at skele til de ordinære domstoles praksis, når det gælder fastsættelsen af sagsomkostninger.

”Men det er en misforståelse. Derfor er det vigtigt, at parternes advokater bruger tid og energi på at gøre voldgiftsretten opmærksom på instituttets regler og fremlægge fyldestgørende oplysninger om de faktisk omkostninger. Jeg er nu ret sikker på, at de advokater, der ofte fører voldgiftssager, er opmærksomme på det, men min erfaring både som advokat og voldgiftsdommer er, at en del advokater fortsat ikke har sagsomkostningsreglerne under huden og ikke gør synderligt meget ud af spørgsmålet hverken i skriftvekslingen eller under proceduren,” understreger han.

Se det som et erstatningskrav

Julie Arnth Jørgensen er ud over at være udnævnt højesteretsdommer også en erfaren voldgiftsdommer. Hendes anbefaling er at skabe transparens omkring omkostningerne.

”Tag emnet op. Det gælder både advokater og dommere. I voldgift kan parterne selvfølgelig aftale at bruge landsretspræsidenternes vejledende takster, men uden en sådan aftale følger det af reglerne, at den vindende part som udgangspunkt får fuld omkostningsdækning. Nogle beskriver tankegangen sådan, at der er tale om et erstatningskrav, hvor den part, der vinder sagen, skal have alle sine omkostninger erstattet. Den vindende part har jo været tvunget til at gå til voldgiftsretten for at ”få ret” og skal derfor som udgangspunkt have erstattet de udgifter, som sagen har nødvendiggjort, ” siger Julie Arnth Jørgensen.

Selv beder hun efter den mundtlige forhandling altid parternes advokater oplyse de samlede udgifter, som sagen har påført klienterne.

”Det er selvfølgelig dyrt for den part, der står tilbage og skal betale både sine egne og modpartens sagsomkostninger, som jo navnlig er udgifter til advokatbistand. Derfor gør jeg altid opmærksom på voldgiftsrettens udgangspunkt for fastsættelse af omkostninger, og jeg har aldrig oplevet, at jeg er blevet udfordret på det. Jeg kan kun huske en enkelt sag, hvor parterne var enige om, at voldgiftsretten skulle bruge landsretspræsidenternes vejledende takster. Det kan nok være en god ide, at Voldgiftsinstituttet gør voldgiftsdommere, som har mindre erfaring opmærksomme på, at emnet bør flages – og gerne i starten af en sag, hvis advokatrepræsentanter ikke er meget erfarne inden for voldgiftsret.”

Torben Bang

Managing Partner, Skov Advokater

Jacob Møller Dirksen

Partner, Accura, og erfaren voldgiftsdommer og medlem af Voldgiftsinstituttets bestyrelse.

Julie Arnth Jørgensen

Højesteretdommer og erfaren voldgiftsdommer.

Læs mere

Reglerne om fastsættelse af sagsomkostninger i voldgiftssager findes i § 40 https://voldgiftsinstituttet.dk/voldgift/regler/

Due to increased expenses, the administrative charges and fees of the DIA in cases that are submitted under the Rules of Arbitration are increased by approx. 15%. The increased charges and fees enter into force as of 1 December 2022. The registration fee is unchanged.

By means of the cost calculator at https://voldgiftsinstituttet.dk/en/costs/ you can obtain a prompt overview of the administrative charge and the amount of the fees of the arbitrator(s). As per 1 December the calculator will be updated with the increased administration charges.

Further information about the DIA’s charges and fees according to the Rules of Arbitration can be found in the updated Schedule of Fees and Charges of the DIA which is available here.

Program from the Copenhagen Arbitration Day can be found here

Slides from the Copenhagen Arbitration Day can be found by clicking on each of the speeches below

Professor dr.jur. Mads Bryde Andersen, University of Copenhagen

The Accused Arbitrator: Will the Increased Focus on Arbitrator Liability Affect

Arbitration as We Know It?

Rechtsanwältin Ulrike Gantenberg, Gantenberg Dispute Experts

Approaches to Best Practice for Facilitating Settlements in Arbitration

Professor dr.jur. Amund Bjøranger Tørum, Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law,

University of Oslo

Jura Novit Curia – Three Perspectives

Michael Ostrove, Global Co-Chair of International Arbitration at DLA Piper and

Vice-President of the ICC International Court of Arbitration

The Biggest Challenges Facing Arbitral Institutions in the Next Decade

The future of arbitration in Denmark looks bright, particularly considering that the number of cases has generally risen over the years, the expertise among Danish law firms and arbitrators has increased considerably, and case law consistently demonstrates that the Danish courts recognise arbitration as an equally worthy alternative to court proceedings.

By Jeppe Skadhauge, Chairman & Steffen Pihlblad, Secretary General

The DIA was founded over 40 years ago and has led many initiatives over the years to promote institutional arbitration and other dispute resolution methods for the benefit of business.

We have recently adopted the updated Rules of Arbitration that focus on best practice, pragmatism and efficiency.

Most recently, we have prepared new Rules for Express Arbitration, which aim to respond to parties’ requests for quicker and more cost-effective dispute resolution, primarily in low-value disputes. We provide further details on these rules and their innovations as part of this newsletter.

Also in this newsletter, Professor, dr.jur. Torsten Iversen discusses, among other points, that both the business perspective and the possibility of experiencing an international legal approach generate a broad interest in arbitration among university students.

The future of arbitration in Denmark thus looks bright, particularly considering that the number of cases has generally risen over the years, the expertise among Danish law firms and arbitrators has increased considerably, and case law consistently demonstrates that the Danish courts recognise arbitration as an equally worthy alternative to court proceedings.

The DIA supports this development. Not least through the ongoing quality assurance of our case handling, but also through other initiatives that can contribute to companies choosing arbitration to an even higher degree and to foreign companies in particular consistently regarding Denmark as an attractive forum for dispute resolution.

By subscribing to our newsletter, you will receive DIA updates and articles on noteworthy arbitration issues.

The principal language of the newsletter is Danish. Certain articles may be in both Danish and English, or only in English, if most appropriate.

Follow us also on LinkedIn for notifications.

Happy reading!

The new Rules for Express Arbitration (the Express Rules) aim to respond to the parties’ oft request for quicker and more cost-effective means of dispute resolution. We answer six key questions here.

1. What are the Express Rules for?

The Express Rules are primarily for low-value disputes. They are rules that set a quicker procedure than the standard rules (the DIA’s Rules of Arbitration) without compromising fundamental principles of arbitration.

2. How do the Express Rules set a quicker procedure than the standard rules?

The Express Rules, by default, set a quicker procedure through, for example:

• shorter requirements for submissions such as the Statement of Claim and the Statement of Defence
• deadlines of 10 calendar days such as for the Statement of Defence and for the award
• a specific provision that the tribunal can limit the parties’ ability to present submissions, documents and other evidence
• no tribunal-appointed experts are to participate in the case, unless the parties agree otherwise
• no oral hearing is to take place, unless the parties agree otherwise
• introduction of a process in less complex cases, where the tribunal confirms in the form of an arbitral award by consent one of the parties’ proposals regarding how the party considers that the dispute should be resolved, further to Art. 18.

3. What is the process at Art. 18?

Art. 18 of the Express Rules innovatively introduces a process, in less complex cases, where the parties agree to settle a dispute fully or partially. If the parties wish to make use of this process, the parties are jointly to request the tribunal to accept that the dispute shall be so resolved. If the parties make this joint request, each party submits to the tribunal a brief reasoned proposal stating how the party considers that the dispute should be resolved. The tribunal, within 10 calendar days of receiving the last proposal, selects the one proposal, out of those submitted, that the tribunal considers to express the most reasonable determination of the parties’ dispute, whether fully or partially further to what the parties agreed. The tribunal then confirms the selected proposal in the form of an arbitral award by consent.

4. Are the parties’ proposals confidential under the Art. 18 process?

The tribunal treats the parties’ proposals as confidential among the parties until the tribunal confirms one of the proposals in the form of an arbitral award by consent. The tribunal can only provide each party’s proposal to the other parties once the tribunal has selected which proposal shall be confirmed in the form of an arbitral award by consent.

5. Can a party unilaterally ask the tribunal to follow the process at Art. 18?

A tribunal can only follow the process at Art. 18 if all the parties to the dispute agree that they make a joint request to the tribunal to accept the use of the process.

6. What if the tribunal cannot select any of the proposals owing to unreasonableness, invalidity, illegality, etc.?

The tribunal has discretion, further to Art. 15(4), to close proceedings under the Express Rules on its own motion at any point during the case, without rendering an award, and refer the parties to the use of other dispute resolution methods such as the DIA’s Rules of Arbitration. This discretion applies to any proceedings under the Express Rules, whether the process at Art. 18 is used or not.

The Express Rules can be found on www.danisharbitration.dk For further information about the DIA or the Rules contact the Secretary General of the DIA Steffen Pihlblad on +45 21636698 or spi@dansiharbitration.dk.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration and ICC Denmark are honoured to present the programme for Copenhagen Arbitration Day 2022.

The premier event of the Danish arbitration calendar takes place on 15 September 2022 at the House of Industry in the heart of Copenhagen.

Lunch seminars will precede the conference, as customary, and drinks and dinner follow at the historic Scandic Palace Hotel.

Register here.

Full programme here.

We are delighted to announce that the Danish Institute of Arbitration will jointly host a webinar on Evidence in International Arbitration with New York University’s Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Commercial Law, and with Copenhagen Business School – CBS Law.

The webinar, which will include presentations from esteemed arbitration scholars and practitioners, will take place on 30 June 2022 from 15:30 – 17:15 (CET) / 9:30 – 11:15 (NY Time).

Participation is free. For more details and registration, see the invitation here.

Join if you can.

Hamburg Arbitration Circle is hosting a webinar on 1 June 2022 9:00 – 10:00 entitled “The HAC meets … the Danish Abritration Community”.

Dr Sven Oswald will present a practitioner’s overview of arbitration in Germany, and the DIA’s Secretary-General Steffen Pihlblad will be discussing recent headlines in Danish arbitration with Henriette Gernaa of Gorrissen Federspiel.

Participation is free. Sign up by 30 May 2022 by sending an email to o.korte@skwschwarz.de. For more details, see the invitation here.

Roschier has published its sixth edition of Roschier Dispute Index 2021, investigating Nordic companies’ practises and trends in dispute resolution. Four points of interesting are the use of arbitration rules, ADR, digital tools, and diversity.

The survey shows that the use of arbitration by Danish companies has increased. All Nordic respondents show a high level of trust in their domestic arbitration institutional rules. This is also the case with Danish companies where 56% prefer the Rules of Danish Institute of Arbitration.

The use of ADR, for instance mediation, has remained more or less stable over the past years. Only 20% of all respondents across the Nordic countries report “yes” to having used ADR in the past 2 years. This seems to be in contradiction with the very good experiences at the Danish Institute of Arbitration with the use of ADR, even when the parties, to begin with, are reluctant to use mediation.

Across the Nordic Countries, the respondents’ report that disputes are becoming more complex and the use of settlement has increased, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. A Danish respondent note that they are careful in selecting which disputes to litigate, but when they litigate, they do so with full force. In addition, there has been an increase in the use of digital tools. At least 50% of the Danish respondent report having used videoconferencing for the taking of witness or expert evidence and used file sharing systems to organize the case files. In the beginning of the pandemic, hearings at the Danish Institute of Arbitration were postponed. As it became clear that the pandemic would last longer than people expected many hearings were conducted as physical or virtual meetings, and the Institute gained very good experiences with conducting remote hearings.

Finally, when asked about the importance of diversity in choice of arbitrator, only 10% of Danish respondents considered diversity important. The question about gender diversity when appointing arbitrators has been on the Danish Institute of Arbitration’s agenda for a number of years, since the Institute committed themselves to the pledge, which was introduced by the arbitration community in 2015, on promoting equal representation in arbitration.

You can read the Roschier Dispute Index 2021 on https://www.roschier.com/. For questions about the Danish Institute of Arbitration please contact Steffen Pihlblad on spi@danisharbitration.dk.

In 2020, 134 cases were submitted to the Danish Institute of Arbitration, which is an increase in caseload compared to 2019. The cases concern a wide array of different commercial topics. Among other things, the DIA has seen an increase in disputes concerning shareholder agreements and cooperation agreements. The duration of time for rendering a final award is roughly on a par with the 2019 statistics. For domestic cases, the average time is 10 months. For international cases, which are typically more complex in nature, the average case handling time is about 13 months. For further details on the 2020 statistics view link:

https://voldgiftsinstituttet.dk/en/about/statistics2017/

Due to the Covid Pandemic and after having monitored the situation closely, the organizers of the Copenhagen Arbitration Day 2021 have decided to postpone the conference, which was scheduled to take place April 2021.

We will announce a new date at a later stage, when the Danish Government once again consider it safe for people to meet in larger groups, and where we hopefully are past social distancing, facemasks, and travel restrictions, etc.

We look forward to our future Copenhagen Arbitration Days and we aim it to be as memorable and successful as back in 2019. We wish you all the best and hope for a turn in the pandemic during spring and summer.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration is happy to announce that we will jointly host a webinar on “Due Process as a Limit to Discretion in International Commercial Arbitration – A Scandinavian Perspective” together with New York University’s Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Commercial Law and Young Arbitrators Copenhagen.

The webinar, which will include presentations from esteemed arbitration scholars and practitioners, will take place on 2 February 2021 from 3:00 – 4:15 pm (CET) / 9:00 – 10:15 am (NY Time).

Please see the attached invitation for more information and details on registration.

We look forward to seeing you there.

On 29 June 2020, the Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) will relocate to brand new premises at Midtermolen 1, 5^th floor, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.

The premises are larger and better equipped to comply with the parties’ needs in arbitration cases and mediations. In addition, brand new telephone and video conferencing facilities have been installed.

We are very much looking forward to welcoming companies, lawyers, arbitrators, experts, mediators etc. to the new premises.

The telephone number of the DIA’s switchboard number, mobile numbers and e-mail addresses of the DIA’s etc. and the address of the DIA’s website is the still the same. The direct telephone numbers of the staff have however changed as follows:

• Steffen Pihlblad:                        (+45) 3242 2790
• Anette Egebjerg:                        (+45) 3242 2791
• David Nicholas Sort Nørlem:    (+45) 3242 2792
• Jutta Thomsen:                           (+45) 3242 2793
• Julie Skov Breum:                       (+45) 3242 2794

In connection with the updating of meeting facilities, a new pricing policy for the rental of meeting rooms has been adopted. You can find the policy here.

The relocation will be celebrated with a reception after the summer holidays. Further information will be announced in the near future.

Any questions to the above can be directed to General Secretary Steffen Pihlblad on telephone (+45) 2163 6698.

From 20 April 2020 the Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) will gradualy open up for physical attendance and meetings.

The DIA handles cases and answers inquiries by telephone and email in the usual manner.

The DIA is in ongoing dialogue with arbitrators and parties on the conduct of physical meetings.

If a physical meeting is to be held at the DIA, this must be done in a health sound way, including any goverment decided restrictions on the number of participants and possibly combined with telephone and / or video conferencing equipment. The DIA will ensure that hand rubbing alcohol at meetings is available and ensure appropriate distance between tables and chairs, etc., so that recommendations of the authorities can be complied with.

The DIA is monitoring the situation closely and will return with further information on an ongoing basis.

Copenhagen, 20 April 2020

The Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) handles cases and answers inquiries by telephone and email in the usual manner.

In accordance with the Prime Minister of Denmark’s recommendations, the DIA’s staff is working from home – for the time being until April 13, 2020 – which is why the DIA is closed for inquiries in person, unless otherwise is expressly agreed with the DIA.

The DIA is in ongoing dialogue with arbitrators and parties on the conduct of physical meetings.

For the time being, the arbitral tribunals have postponed physical meetings until the situation is normalized. Alternatively, the arbitral tribunals and the parties may consider whether cases may be decided in whole or in part on a written basis. Additionally, it may also be considered whether meetings can be advantageously held through the use of telecommunications.

The DIA is monitoring the situation closely and will return with further information on an ongoing basis.

During the period March 13 – April 13, 2020 (both days included), the Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) can be contacted by telephone and e-mail, but the DIA is closed for personal inquiries, unless otherwise is expressly agreed.

The DIA monitors the situation closely and will provide further information on an ongoing basis.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration and ICC Denmark are delighted to host Copenhagen Arbitration Day 2020 (“CAD”), on 2 April.

Click here for registration for the event and to find the full program, that also includes the option of Lunch Seminars.

In addition the 2^nd Nordic Arbitration Day (“NAD”) will take place in Copenhagen on 3 April. Registration for both CAD and NAD is possible by use of the same link.

CAD 2020 takes place at a new venue; at the headquarters of the Confederation of Danish Industry, situated right in the center of the city of Copenhagen, just between the City Hall Square (Danish: “Rådhuspladsen”) and its brand new Metro Station (Danish: “Rådhuspladsen Station”) and the famous Tivoli Gardens.

Admission to the conference, that begins at 15:00 CET (registration from 14:30) is free, but a fixed price of DKK 750 for participation in the drinks reception and dinner (from 18:30 CET) at the historical Hotel Scandic Palace is applicable.

Update 12 March 2020: The event is CANCELLED

Statistics for 2019 (and previous years) can be found here

After the memorable Copenhagen Arbitration Days in 2018 and 2019, The Danish Institute of Arbitration and ICC Denmark are delighted to host “Copenhagen Arbitration Day 2020”, on 2 April.

This year, we are once again able to present some very distinguished speakers from the international arbitration environment, such as Carita Wallgren-Lindholm, Clare Ambrose and Mads Bryde Andersen together with a number of leading practitioners from Norway and Denmark.

This year, the event takes place at a new venue; at the headquarters of the Confederation of Danish Industry, situated right in the center of the city of Copenhagen, just between the City Hall Square (Danish: “Rådhuspladsen”) and its brand new Metro Station (Danish: “Rådhuspladsen Station”) and the famous Tivoli Gardens.

Copenhagen Arbitration Day offers an outstanding opportunity to explore fundamental issues in international arbitration, to network and to be updated on international trends within the field of international arbitration. Like in 2018 and 2019, there will be a drinks reception and a dinner after the conference. Admission to the conference is free, but a fixed price for participation in the dinner will be applicable.

Stay tuned for a full programme and registration
*
Update: Click here for full programme and registration

The staff of the Danish Institute of Arbitration has today celebrated the Secretary General’s, Steffen Pihlblad’s, 50 years birthday with balloons and a present.

The DIA is always on the run
The staff of the Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) participated in the 5 x 5 km relay “DHL Stafetten”, in Copenhagen, in a joint partnership for the event with the Danish Bar and Law Society.

The staff of DIA had a ‘hyggelig’ evening – and of course decent running results.

The Faroe Islands
The staff of the DIA will on 31 August 2019 – 03 September 2019 travel to the Faroe Islands.

The DIA will among other things visit the law firm, Advokatskrivstovan, and DIA case handler, Jutta Thomsen’s home island.

Due to this trip abroad the staff of the DIA will have limited access to emails and the premises of the DIA will be closed for personal inquiries on 02 and 03 September 2019.

If you have an urgent matter, please contact Secretary General Steffen Pihlblad at phone number (+45) 2163 6698

On behalf of Young ICCA, the Danish Institute of Arbitration invites every one who has an interest in international arbitration to join Young ICCA Skills Training Workshop in Copenhagen, Friday 5th of April 2019. The topic of the workshop is “Written and Oral Advocacy in International Arbitration”, and the workshop will take place at the law firm Gorrissen Federspiel.

There will be coffee breaks and served lunch at the venue free of charge. Furthermore, there will be hosted a cocktail reception afterwards at a different location.

Please click on the link for further details.

https://www.arbitration-icca.org/YoungICCA/EventPages/YoungIcca_5april2019_Copenhagen.html

After the memorable Copenhagen Arbitration Day was launched last year, The Danish Institute of Arbitration and ICC Denmark are delighted to host Copenhagen Arbitration Day 2019, on 04 April.

This year, we are also able to present some very distinguished speakers from the international arbitration environment and a number of leading practitioners from Denmark.

The event takes place once again in the historical building Børsen, situated right in the center of the city of Copenhagen, next to the Danish Parliament and the Supreme Court. Admission to the conference is free.

Copenhagen Arbitration Day offers an outstanding opportunity to explore fundamental issues in international arbitration, to network and to be updated on international trends within the field of international arbitration. The dinner after the meeting at Restaurant Søren K can be booked during the registration. Please be aware the dinner has limited capacity. The price for participating in the drinks reception and the dinner at Restaurant Søren K is DKK 750 (EUR 100).

For a full programme, registration and or any hotel reservation, click here

Counsel David Nicholas Sort Nørlem and Counsel Kristine Gundersen from the Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) will attend the Nordic Arbitration Day in Stockholm on 18 January 2019.

The Nordic Arbitration Day is a full-day conference for young practitioners – age 45 or under – with interesting seminars, panel discussions and perfect opportunities to expand your Nordic network. The aim of the Nordic Arbitration Day is to promote arbitration in the Nordics, create a cross-jurisdictional platform for young practitioners, and overall strengthen the Nordic arbitration community.

China has in recent years become an increasingly important trade partner for countries all over the world, including Denmark. As more trade can result in more disputes, the Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) was delighted to host a visit on 22 October 2018 from a delegation of representatives from the China Changchun Arbitration Commission (“CCAC”). The purpose of the Delegation’s visit was to learn about the DIA and arbitration in Denmark.

The picture below is from the meeting and shows the Deputy Director of CCAC, Ms. Ma Jin-Zhi (right), receiving a signed copy of the book “Arbitration in Denmark” from Secretary General of the DIA, Mr. Steffen Pihlblad, who has co-authored the book.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration (DIA) is co-organizing the 2018 Nordic Summit on Commercial Dispute Resolution in China with the other arbitration institute’s in the Nordic region and the Beijing International Arbitration Center (BIAC).

The Nordic Summit is a one day event and takes place on 18 June 2018 in Stockholm. It unites experts from China and the Nordic countries to present and discuss the developments of commercial dispute resolution in China. The program includes different topics such as Energy Dispute Resolution, Mediation and Construction Dispute. Among the speakers from Denmark are the independent arbitrator Niels Schiersing and Attorney Mathias Steinø.

The event is tailor made for arbitration professionals who want to get an insight to the evolution of arbitration in China. The event also provides very good opportunities to network with high ranking representatives from the Nordic Arbitral institutions and the BIAC.

You can find the Program here. The event also includes lunch buffet and cocktail reception.

You can register through this link:  http://annualreport.bjac.org.cn/en#signup

The Registration fee covers the conference, coffee break, lunch buffet and cocktail reception:

• Institute/Judge/Lawyer/In-house Counsel: EUR 100/CNY 800
• Academia/Student: EUR 20/CNY 160

A summary of Copenhagen Arbitration Day 2018 can be found here.

Next year on 04 April 2019, the Danish Institute of Arbitration and ICC Denmark will once again host a joint event on international arbitration in Copenhagen.

More information on how to register etc. will follow.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) is the proud sponsor of Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot, which is a worldwide competition for law students to compete and provide international commercial law and arbitration for resolution of international business disputes.

The DIA will be present in Vienna, Austria, where the finals will take place 23 – 29 March 2018.

Prior to the finals, the DIA will attend the Danish law firm Plesner’s Pre-Moot on 8 – 9 March 2018.

The DIA was also present as sponsor and acted as arbitrators in Aarhus, Denmark, when Aarhus University hosted a Pre-Moot. The picture is from the reception at DLA Piper (Denmark) of the winning team from Aarhus University who among others won over a university team from Germany in the Pre-Moot Final.

Statistics for 2017 (and previous years) can be found here

The next International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators (ICMA) will take place in Copenhagen from 25-29 September 2017, hosted by the Danish Institute of Arbitration.

The five-day Congress is expected to draw around 300 delegates to the Danish capital.

ICMA, which is held every 2 or 3 years, is an important forum for maritime arbitrators, lawyers and for the world wide shipping industry in which to deliberate on and exchange experience, views and news.

Aside from providing a forum for discussion and high quality papers, ICMA also includes a social program for accompanying persons and delegates. A black tie dinner is a tradition, as are one or two cocktail parties.

Please register here in due time and save money.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration (“DIA”) has in 2016 received a record high number of cases, i.e. 135 cases, which is an increase of 18% compared to the average submission of cases  the previous 5 years.

The record high number of cases is partly caused by the fact that the DIA has received an increment of international arbitration cases.

The statistics for 2016 (and other years) can be found here.

Seminar Young Arbitrators Copenhagen, 18 November 2016

Attorney Jimmy Skjold Hansen (Plesner) started by presenting the framework of the discussion, i.e. the role of the Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal.

The Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal (hereafter “Secretary”) is usually a lawyer who works with the President of the Arbitral Tribunal. He or she assists the arbitral tribunal in order to minimize the time that the arbitrators should spent on the case. According to the Queen Mary University’ studies, 35% of arbitration cases have a Secretary and the practice is generally accepted.

The problem lies in the definition of tasks. Everybody agrees that the Secretary should do administrative tasks. But what does “administrative” mean? Can the Secretary summarize the parties’ opinions or write memos on point of laws? Does it extend to writing a first draft of the final arbitral award? Does it involve attending or maybe even participating to the deliberations of the arbitral tribunal?

In arbitration, the Parties appoint the arbitrators for their qualifications. That mandate is personal and carries a duty of confidentiality. It gives the personally-nominated arbitrators competence to decide the case and allows transparency in the arbitral proceedings.

The problem is that the Secretary is not appointed by the Parties but proposed by the President of the Arbitral Tribunal. What rules apply to this function?

There are usually not any provisions in the arbitration clauses or the applicable arbitration act. Arbitral institutions sometimes have adopted guidelines or a declaration of impartiality and independence like at the Danish Institute of Arbitration. Associations like the Young ICCA drafted the “Best Practices for the Appointment and Use of Arbitral Secretaries”. All the documents that exist are lists of Dos and Don’t.

In case of problem or doubt regarding the work performed by a Secretary, who is competent to judge on it? The Parties, the arbitrators, the national judge or the arbitral institutions? There is a need for a clear answer and there is none at the moment.

Attorney Thomas Stouten (Houthoff Buruma) is a lawyer based in the Netherlands. He is a member of the team of attorneys representing the Russian State before the Dutch courts regarding the annulment of the arbitral award in the Yukos case. The Dutch courts have annulled the award based on jurisdiction but another argument advanced by the Russian State regarded the role of the Secretary.

As a preliminary and according to Dutch case law, the arbitrator’s mandate is strictly personal, the number of arbitrators must be an odd number and all arbitrators must participate in the rendering of the award and sign it.

In the Yukos case, the Parties first accepted to appoint a Secretary from the PCA. The President of the Arbitral Tribunal then asked whether the Parties could accept that he is assisted by a younger colleague from his law firm; which the Parties accepted. There was therefore a second Secretary appointed. According to the rules applicable to the case, all of the involved were paid by the hour.

Upon the rendering of the arbitral award, the Russian State realized that the two secretaries had worked a substantial amount of hours on the case and therefore requested a detailed specification of their time sheets. The PCA was not authorized to disclose such information but the second Secretary, as a lawyer, was. It showed that he had performed extensive tasks. Moreover, a linguistic study indicated that he had drafted almost the whole arbitral award, including the reasons.

The Russian State argued therefore that the Arbitral Tribunal had breached its personal mandate and that the second Secretary had overstepped his competence.

The other party argued that the claim was based on conjecture only and that both parties had given their consent to the secretaries’ work in the case. They moreover argued that the claim was forfeit since, even if valid, it should have been raised during the proceedings and not after.

The Dutch courts have not rendered any decision on the matter but it gives an illustration of the question about the extent of the role of the Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal.

The speakers proceeded then to a debate.

As pointed out by Attorney Jimmy Skjold Hansen in his presentation, there are no clear legal-binding rules on the question of the role of a Secretary.

One could ask whether the role of the Secretary could be compared to the role of the clerks of a national court. The nature of the two systems is, however different. A national judge handles a case as representative of the state whereas the arbitrators are appointed directly and personally by the parties for their expertise. Moreover, when the arbitrators accept a case, they commit themselves to be available and they are paid directly by the parties for their work.

The speakers compared therefore several studies as to whether different tasks where accepted to be performed by a Secretary. The answers to the different questions were quite different depending on the studies and on their date. Some examples follow:

• Legal research: perceived by most as a task performed by junior lawyers or even an intern, the answers from the polls were not as unanimous as one could expect.
• Attend the deliberation: the polls were positive which is understandable if the Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal only is there to observe.
• Participate to the deliberation: the polls were negative since the mandate to decide the case is given personally to the arbitrators.
• Write substantive part of the award: the polls were negative since the mandate to judge the case is given personally to the arbitrators. However, some in the audience were of the opinion that there would be no harm if the Secretary were to follow the decision reached personally between the arbitrators during the deliberation.
• Write non substantive parts: perceived by most as an administrative task since it only involves recapitulating the dates and acts performed during the proceedings, the answers from the polls were not as unanimous as one could expect.

The conclusion of the speakers was again that a reform was highly needed to establish clear rules on the role of the Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal.

Alexander Lecture “Use and Abuse of Due Process in International Arbitration” by Attorney Bernardo Cremades, CIArb London, 16 November 2016.

Use…

Due process is the backbone of arbitration since the arbitrators must conduct the proceedings in such a way that the arbitral award is enforceable. It plays a role in every step of the proceedings but is of particular importance in procedural matters such as for instance award on jurisdiction, decision on bifurcation and decision on evidence.

Bernardo Cremades pointed out that: “The difference between flexibility and chaos is not always really clear”. Indeed, the content of due process can be discussed at length and varies from common law to civil law procedure. In international arbitration, it is based first and foremost upon the will of the parties and it is the arbitrators that apply it, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the arbitrators’ own view of due process.

When a breach of due process occurs, it is the parties that suffer the consequences of the breach. They are the one paying the costs of the proceedings.

… and abuse of due process

Due process has become the lawyers’ threat of choice to what the arbitrators fear the most – the annulation of the award. If the arbitrators refuse to accept the lawyers’ demands to change the proceedings, the lawyers start talking of due process.

Those threats arise often when the arbitrators must decide whether to accept late submissions, new evidence late in the process or additional experts.

As an arbitrator, Bernardo Cremades likes to tell the lawyers: “Remember that you are here to convince us, not to confuse us”. Indeed, the problem of documentary evidence is particularly topical as regards due process. Arbitral proceedings are plagued by “documentary tsunamis” that only confuse the arbitrators. The arbitrators have the role of moderators but lack powers of the national judges. It is, therefore, important to have the support of the national judges and law systems but not all the countries are pro-arbitration.

Due process also plays a role as regards independence and impartiality of the arbitrators. If a party hires a new lawyer to a pending arbitration but the new lawyer creates a conflict of interest with an already appointed arbitrator, then it will usually be the arbitrator that must resign. Why? Why not find another lawyer?

Of course, arbitrators should also accept constructive criticism. Some arbitrators act criminally like in the Bernard Tapie case from France and others prefer playing Sudoku or answering e-mails rather than listening during hearings.

As a result of delay in the proceedings and too much documentary evidence, arbitrations cost too much and those macro-proceedings threaten parties’ access to justice. As a consequence, third party funding has found its way into arbitration, but this poses new deontology problems and sometimes only increase the costs.

The Secretary-General of the DIA Steffen Pihlblad (on the picture: 1^st from the left) was honored to receive the visit, on the 4^th of July 2016, of a delegation from Xiamen, China, headed by Mr. LIN Rui, Vice Mayor of Xiamen Municipal People’s Government (2^nd from the left). The other prominent members of the delegation were, among others: Mr. LIN Jianwen, Deputy Director General & Secretary General of Xiamen Arbitration Commission (1^st on the right) and Ms. WU Lixue, Vice President of the Xiamen Intermediate People’s Court.

The participants compared the practice of both arbitrations institutes and had fruitful discussions on how to handle challenges regarding the administration of commercial disputes through arbitration and mediation. The delegation members showed a particular interest in maritime arbitration, therefore the DIA hopes to see them again at the ICMA 2017, which takes place 25^th-29^th September 2017 in Copenhagen.

What sort of arbitration?

On 19 May 2016, the offices of LETT Law Firm hosted a conference organized by the Young Arbitrators Copenhagen (YAC) on “What sort of Arbitration?”. The four speakers presented each a different sort of arbitration in Denmark. A lot of participants expressed their big interest in the topics, since most of the lawyers are specialized in one type of disputes and tend to not know about the others.

Professor Mads Bryde Andersen from Copenhagen University started the conference by presenting arbitration in gas disputes. This type of arbitration is highly specialized and deals with gas as a commodity.

Attorney Anders Bjørn Nielsen from Hafnia Law Firm presented maritime arbitration. It includes a wide range of different disputes concerning, among others, construction of ships and carriage of goods. By tradition, maritime arbitration is mainly held in London, but the Scandinavian countries are thinking of creating a regional alternative.

Assistant Professor Sylvie Cécile Cavaleri from Copenhagen University presented arbitration of construction disputes. The Danish standard constructions contracts (AB and ABR) are currently being revised and it sets into questions the functioning of the Arbitration Court for Construction and Engineering. The conclusion of the intervention was a proposal to revise the system so it becomes pure arbitration or pure domestic courts. Not the status quo which is a blending of both and detrimental to the international cases in particular.

Finally, Attorney Morten Eisensee from Poul Schmidt Law Firm presented arbitration of labor unions disputes. In rare and really specific occurrences, it is possible to arbitrate labor disputes. However, like in the case of the Arbitration Court for Construction and Engineering, this type of arbitration is tainted by rules from the domestic court system.

On 7 April 2016, over 30 senior in-house counsel from various leading international companies met for a half-day workshop in the heart of Copenhagen to discuss the success factors for optimized negotiation results in international conflicts. The workshop, which was hosted by the Danish Institute of Arbitration and Berlin-based PFROMM NEGOTIATIONS, looked into the diverse challenges of in-house counsel when facing international conflicts and protracted negotiations. Dr. René A. Pfromm and Marc Ohrendorf identified eight success factors in settling international disputes and how to overcome the risks arising from information asymmetry, frustrated parties and suboptimal negotiation techniques.

In a real-life-based simulation featuring a commercial dispute between a European and an Asian shareholder of a joint venture, the participants put their skills into practice. Despite the difficulties arising from cultural differences, distrust and differing business ideas and visions, the participants achieved favorable settlements, applying value-creation strategies and tactics that laid the ground for potential future work and maintaining a healthy relationship between the parties. The workshop also identified effective methods to deal with intercultural difference, to influence one’s negotiation opponents and to send strong signals while finding a beneficial solution outside of traditional litigation. Steffen Pihlblad, Secretary General of the DIA, shared his experience of international conflicts and how to solve them through negotiations and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The event concluded with a reception for networking, experience exchange and many discussions among the participants about their individual experiences and upcoming challenges.

A senior in-house counsel summarized the workshop as: “It was an excellent workshop and I really liked the speakers – they were good at communicating and, even if you knew the topic, they were good at setting new angles.”

For upcoming negotiation events and workshops in Copenhagen, please follow the Danish Institute of Arbitration and PFROMM NEGOTIATIONS on social media.

The DIA and Pfromm Negotiations are pleased to invite you to the workshop “Solving International Disputes through Strategic Negotiations” on 7 April 2016 from 13:00 to 17:30 at the DIA’s premises. The workshop is free of charge but registration is mandatory due to the limited number of seats. Members of the Danish Corporate Counsel Association have priority. For more information and registration, please read the event brochure.

Ordre public and request to set aside an arbitral award

The Danish Supreme Court confirms, in its decision of 28 January 2016, that an arbitral award can only be set aside as contrary to ordre public if there have been such extraordinarily serious mistakes that the arbitral award is manifestly incompatible with the domestic legal system.

The arbitral tribunal has ruled on whether the distribution agreement, as interpreted by the arbitral tribunal’s reasoning, is contrary to EU competition law. The arbitral tribunal interpreted the agreement as meaning that it involved a partnership where both parties undertook some obligations and got some rights, including Taewoong’s duty to inform AH Industries on orders received and to respect AH Industries’ privileged position in relation to customers developed by AH Industries for Taewoong, which limited Taewoong’s rights to benefit from AH Industries’ distribution work without offering AH Industries a reasonable compensation. It was the arbitral tribunal’s analysis of such obligations that they do not conflict with EU competition law (see section 401 of the arbitral award).

The Supreme Court finds that there is no basis for concluding that the arbitral tribunal, in its assessment, has committed such extraordinarily serious mistakes, that the arbitral award is manifestly incompatible with the domestic legal system (ordre public). The Supreme Court therefore finds that the conditions for setting aside the arbitral award as per Section 37 paragraph 2, 2 b) of the Arbitration Act are not satisfied.

Read the Danish Supreme Court’s judgment in PDF

This is an unofficial translation made by the DIA.

In 2013, David Nicholas Sort Noerlem worked at the Danish Institute of Arbitration (DIA) as a student. Afterwards, David worked for two years as a Civil Servant at the Ministry of Justice in Denmark. David returns to the DIA as a full-time Counsel.

Kristine Gundersen worked at the DIA as student until she obtained an LL.M. from the University of Copenhagen in December 2015. Kristine, who is a Norwegian citizen, is now included in the DIA’s team as a full-time Counsel.

The DIA is delighted to welcome David and Kristine as members of the DIA’s team of jurists.

To contac them: https://voldgiftsinstituttet.dk/en/contact/staff/

The Danish Institute of Arbitration co-organizes with the Association for International Arbitration (AIA) a conference on Third Party Funding on 9 June 2016.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration is proud to announce its decision to bid to host the ICCA Congress 2020. Since 2008, the ICCA Congress has not been hosted in Europe, so the DIA has confidence in its chances of hosting this important event in Copenhagen, Denmark.  Furthermore, it is the second time the DIA is bidding and Denmark has never before been the host of an ICCA Congress.

We hope for great support for this bid from the national, regional and international arbitration community. Contact us if you are interested.

The DIA and its partners the Association of Danish Law Firms, the Arbitration Institute Finland and Oslo Chamber of Commerce are pleased to invite you to a breakfast discussion “Cultural Clashes in Dispute Resolution” Monday 5 October at 8am – 9.15am, at Grand Hotel, Galerie, Kärntner Ring 9, 1010 Vienna, Austria.

The new Rules are in force as from 1 June 2015.

DOWNLOAD THE PDF

The Rules, which have been revised with the collaboration of the DIA’s Mediation Committee, are in many ways inspired by the ICC’s new rules on mediation, which entered into force on 1 January 2014.

The main innovations can be described briefly as follows:

1. The registration fee was adjusted to EUR 1,300.00 to match the registration fee in arbitration cases. In cases which are not solved by mediation, and where an arbitration is commenced immediately thereafter at the DIA, the registration fee paid shall be credited as the registration fee for the arbitration proceedings.
2. Article 4 includes a provision about the role of the DIA in the frequent cases where a request for mediation is submitted without previous agreement between the parties.
3. Article 5 concerns the appointment of the mediator. The principle is now that the parties should jointly appoint the mediator.
4. The number of articles on the mediator’s duties is reduced. The aim is to give the parties and the mediator the necessary flexibility in the administration of the course of the mediation.
5. Appendix 1 concerns the setting of the mediator’s fee and of the DIA’s administrative charge. The administrative charge shall be fixed to half the rate of the scales for calculating administrative charge to the DIA in arbitration proceedings. In cases that are not solved by mediation and where an arbitration is commenced immediately thereafter at the DIA, the administrative charge paid shall be credited as the administrative charge for the arbitration proceedings. The Chairman’s Committee is also given the power to reduce the administrative charge if the amount is found unreasonable, for example because the case is limited to a party which declared not being willing to participate to the mediation.
6. The Mediator’s fee is, by default, set on the basis of the time spent and of an hourly rate decided by the Chairman’s Committee of the DIA. Alternatively, the parties and the mediator can agree that the Chairman’s Committee shall set the mediator’s fees to a fixed price, which can also be reduced by the Chairman’s Committee in the same circumstances as stated above regarding the DIA’s charge.

Read about the benefits of Mediation at the Danish Institute of Arbitration.

Read the brochure as a PDF

To order the new brochure for free, just send an email to office@danisharbitration.dk and specify your postal address and the number of copies you need.

The ICMA Steering Committee has fixed the dates of the ICMA XX.

Save the dates and join us in Copenhagen on 25-29 September 2017.

The ICMA Steering Committee has announced today that the Danish Institute of Arbitration would be the host organization of the ICMA XX.

Hong Kong, 15 May 2015

The next congress of the renowned world forum for maritime arbitrators, for lawyers and for the shipping industry will take place in Copenhagen in September 2017. The five-day conference is expected to draw around 300 delegates to the Danish capital.

The ICMA was established in 1972 to provide a forum for maritime arbitrators and lawyers from around the world to exchange views and news of professional interest.

Aside from providing a forum for discussion and serious, scholarly papers, the Congress always includes a social program for accompanying persons and delegates.

What draws ICMA to Denmark?

The long-standing maritime tradition in Denmark is well-known. Denmark might be considered a small Nordic country but given its historic and widespread maritime and arbitration traditions, it has actually made large contributions in both of these areas.

Besides being able to say that Denmark is home to one of the largest shipowners in the world, many other significant shipowners are domiciled in Denmark in order to participate in the country’s comprehensive and well-developed shipping industry.

The Danish Institute of Arbitration as host organization

The Danish Institute of Arbitration was founded in 1981 as a non-profit private foundation and is supported by a circle of important business organizations such as the Danish Bar and Law Society, the Danish Arbitration Association and the Danish Shipowners’ Association. The Danish Institute of Arbitration is the only general center for alternative dispute resolution in Denmark and approximately one third of the Danish Institute of Arbitration’s case load is international.

The DIA supports the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration’s Inaugural Arbitration Week on 7-9th May 2015.

This inaugural event is organised in conjunction with the CIArb Centennial Lecture that is celebrated to mark its 100th year of establishment and contribution to the arbitration industry.

The key highlights of KLIAW 2015 is the CIArb Centennial Lecture that will be delivered by Professor Doug Jones AO, a leading international commercial arbitrator in the Asia-Pacific region. The week will also see four streams on offer, namely the Islamic Arbitration (i-Arbitration) Conference, Sports Arbitration Conference, the Sanctions Conference and the annual RAIF Conference 2015.

For more information and for registration, visit http://kliaw.org/2015/

Please read about the Rules here.

International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators Hong Kong – May 11-15, 2015

The International Congress of Maritime Arbitrators (ICMA) is an important academic exchange forum in the field of international maritime arbitration. Held for every two or three years, the 19th ICMA will be organized by Hong Kong Maritime Arbitration Group in Hong Kong in May 2015.

For more information and registration, please visit the website of the event, at:

http://www.icma2015hongkong.org/

The Danish Institute of Arbitration is pleased to invite you to the Conference on
Arbitration of Energy Disputes: New Challenges,
held in Copenhagen on September 1-2, 2014.

Please find more details about the Conference here. Please find the program,here.

Registration is closed!

We recommend that you carefully review the Payment and Cancellation

Study of a Mock Case under the 2012 ICC Arbitration Rules
Period: From 12 to 14 September 2013

Every truly international arbitration practitioner and corporate counsel involved in or considering the use of arbitration is well advised to acquaint himself/herself with the ICC Rules of Arbitration 2012.This study of a mock arbitration case aims to meet the practical needs of those involved in international trade and investment and will simulate an ICC arbitration proceeding, highlighting differences in cultures and legal practices, and at the same time offer the participants the unique opportunity to exchange views with renown and experienced arbitration practitioners.

The PIDA training is using materials developed by the ICC in Paris. It includes the study of an international arbitration mock case based on the factual scenario of an international sales and service contract.

With the participants acting as counsel, arbitrators and witnesses, the training is designed to put the participants in a situation that is similar to a real life arbitration. The PIDA training’s secret to success is the combination of short academic presentations by the panelists and the practical simulation of an arbitration procedure, be it by drafting a Request for Arbitration, an Answer or Terms of Reference, by conducting a mock hearing or by scrutinizing a draft Final Award.

Find more details and registration form in the enclosed pdf

Seminar about current hot topics in international Arbitration.

Further details are available here

Maritime Arbitration in Denmark

A seminar presented by Danish Shipowners’ Association in association with the Danish Institute of Arbitration.

12 May 2009, at 14:30-17:00

at the premises of Danish Shipowners’ Association, Amaliegade 33, DK-1256 Copenhagen K

Everybody who is involved in concluding contracts in the field of maritime law should attend. Also attorneys, arbitrators, in-house counsel, academics and others with interest in the current developments in the field of maritime arbitration should attend.

Registration no later than 6 May 2009 on office@voldgiftsinstituttet.dk is required. Registration is free of charge.

P R O G R A M M E

 14:30-14:40: Welcome and Introduction

• Attorney Jesper Lett, Chairman of the Danish Institute of Arbitration

14:40-15:00: Settling disputes with the Danish Institute of Arbitration

• Steffen Pihlblad, Managing Director of the Danish Institute of Arbitration

15:00-15:45: Maritime Arbitration in Denmark and abroad

• Attorney Henrik Thal Jantzen, Kromann Reumert
• Attorney Jes Anker Mikkelsen, Bech-Bruun
• Attorney Peter Appel, Gorrissen Federspiel Kierkegaard

Agrneda:

• Experiences with arbitration in London and Copenhagen
• How do you get success in negotiations of arbitration clauses?
• What is a dispute resolution policy and why your business must have a dispute resolution policy
• How do you appoint the best arbitrator?
• Qualified arbitrators and party representatives in Denmark
• Future perspectives with maritime arbitration in Denmark

15:45-16:00: Coffee break

16:00-16:30: Maritime Arbitration in Denmark and abroad, continued

16:30-16:45: The interest of Insurance companies in alternative dispute resolution in maritime cases

• T.b.a.

16:45-17:00: Concluding remarks and questions

• Attorney Jesper Lett, Chairman of the Danish Institute of Arbitration