Young Arbitrators Sweden (YAS) Arbitration Day 2025
THE AUTHOR:
Jake Lowther, Specialist Counsel at the SCC Arbitration Institute
Frederik Hummelmose, Intern at the SCC Arbitration Institute
On 6 November 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States—a turning point in history that ushered in profound change through dialogue, rhetoric, and resilience.165 years later, Tom Blank (Westerberg & Partners) and Victoria Malmkvist (Court of Appeal for Western Sweden), welcomed the members of Young Arbitrators Sweden (YAS) to its annual flagship event, YAS Arbitration Day (Sw. Skiljeförfarandedagen) in central Stockholm.
This year’s event strongly focused on collaborative skills and personal relationships, emphasising that these are just as important as legal competence in the field of dispute resolution.
This article reports on the key takeaways from the day, including insights from panel discussions on maximising team performance, AI in arbitration, recent Swedish Supreme Court practice on partial annulment of arbitral awards, and the cooperation between global and local counsel. The day also featured talks on calculating claims, post-M&A disputes, cross-examining experts, and personal branding.
Psychology and Maximising Team Performance
Kicking off the day, Axel Ryning (Foyen), Emmelie Tedfelt (Setterwalls), Anna Egefalk (Vinge), and Jens Näsström (Ambition Profile AB), moderated by Jon Kroksjö (Setterwalls), shared their thoughts on how to maximise team performance in arbitration – both internally within the counsel team and between counsel and client – in a field that is inherently characterised by conflict.
Fostering a spirit of “us against them” can enhance team spirit and performance. The panel also emphasised the importance of creating a productive work culture within the counsel team, focusing on two main elements: delegation of responsibility and openness.
Senior lawyers must delegate responsibility effectively, whilst junior lawyers must take initiative to assume greater responsibility. The panel emphasised that senior lawyers value the honest and independent opinions of junior lawyers and suggested that juniors should be permitted to express their opinions first to avoid being influenced by their seniors’ perspectives. The panel also warned against micromanaging people or reducing them to mere transcription services.
An open work environment is essential to ensure psychological safety and optimal performance. There must be room for failure but also a willingness to learn from mistakes and grow. This approach can help improve psychological safety in a field where self-perception is often linked to the most recent professional results. Openness to constructive scrutiny of each other’s work to improve performance is essential.
Moreover, the panel emphasised the importance of collaborative skills and strong personal relationships, within the team and externally, alongside legal competence.
Coffee-House Debate on AI and Procedural Tools in Arbitration
Next up was a fast-paced debate between Madeleine Thörn (SCC Arbitration Institute) and Emil Andersson (Delphi) on one side and Linda Heikkilä (AG Advokat) and Malcolm Robach (Mannheimer Swartling) on the other, moderated by Patricia Shaughnessy (Stockholm University).
The debaters were randomly assigned sides, with their arguments not necessarily reflecting their personal opinions, on the topics “Do arbitrators have an obligation to disclose their use of AI to the parties?” and “Should arbitrators have more tools at their disposal to ensure a fair and efficient process?”. The audience participated in the debate by voting before and after each motion, with some very close results. As ever, it appears to be a case of “it depends”.
Partial Annulment of Arbitral Awards – Recent Swedish Supreme Court Practice
To discuss recent Swedish Supreme Court (“Court”) practice regarding partial annulment of arbitral awards were Oskar Gentele (Eversheds Sutherland), Jonathan Löwy (AG Advokat), and André Mossberg (Wallin & Partners), moderated by Erik Bogegård (Norburg & Scherp).
The discussion focused on recent jurisprudence, including case T-555-24 “Blue Gas Holding”, in which the Court clarified that an award should not be annulled to a greater extent than necessary. This is due to the “final and binding” nature of arbitration. The Court therefore held that the award, which concerned an intra-EU investment arbitration case that also involved a non-EU investor, could not be invalidated with respect to that non-EU investor.
According to the discussion, the legal position in Sweden is based on doctrine and case law from Scandinavian jurisdictions such as Norway. Interestingly, the requirements for separability of individual parts of an award in partial annulment proceedings appear to be lower in Scandinavia than in many other jurisdictions. As such, partial annulment may be possible in Scandinavian jurisdictions in cases where it would not be permitted elsewhere due to the different parts of the award being too closely interconnected.
Quantum Considerations
Addressing what to consider when calculating a claim were valuation expert Thorbjörn Lilja (Aderio) and William Lundgren (Cederquist).
They covered the legal basis for the existence of claims and tackled several calculation methods. The most common method is to calculate the difference between the actual and the hypothetical course of events, but it can pose significant difficulties to prove the hypothetical course of events. They also described different valuation models, with the most common being the cash flow model. Less common but still viable options include relative valuation, substantial valuation, and cost estimates, with the latter being more common in technology and patent disputes. As such, they note that the best valuation model will depend on the case.
As for the collaboration between counsel and valuation experts, the importance of bringing in experts early, defining their assignment, and giving them access to necessary information is paramount. The speakers emphasised that the iterative process between counsel and valuation experts is one of the most important factors for successful collaboration.
Collaboration Between Global and Local Counsel
On a practical note, Joel Dahlquist (Arnold & Porter), Yael Ribco Borman (Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes), Sebastian Berglind (Vinge), and Maria Fogdestam Agius (Westerberg & Partners), moderated by Jacqueline Fritzson (Vinge), discussed the cooperation between global and local counsel working on the same case.
The panel noted that “international arbitration is comparative law in action”, and often in international arbitration, both international and local law firms are engaged to work on the same case. This arrangement can be mutually beneficial but also presents challenges. While everyone on the panel agreed that the setup and roles of local and global counsel, respectively, vary, there were a few common elements as well.
As international law is often central, global counsel generally takes the lead while the local counsel takes on a more advisory role. Where national law elements are involved, local and global counsel sometimes act more as two co-counsels, and typically the local firm takes the lead in e.g. set-aside cases as these are based on national rules. In defining the roles of local and global counsels, language and the client’s budget are decisive factors. Regardless of their respective roles, the panel emphasised that both teams offer specialised expertise that benefits the collaboration.
Although rare, the panel noted that challenges can arise when local counsel is not sufficiently briefed on the case, and that delegation of work is key for a successful collaboration. For the global counsel, especially the understanding of both jurisdictional and non-legal culture can pose a challenge, which local counsel can help mitigate.
Dealing with Post-M&A Disputes
To discuss post-M&A disputes were Emma Westman (Mannheimer Swartling), Jon Stenlund Lindgren (Krogerus), Caroline Gulliksson Dock (Gernandt & Danielsson), and Anders Öhlin (Vinge), moderated by Agnes Jäderberg (Mannheimer Swartling).
The panellists began by noting an increase in post-M&A disputes, which constitute approximately a quarter of all cases at the SCC Arbitration Institute. Although there are difficulties in defining and delimiting M&A disputes, they agreed that a common denominator was the transfer of shares.
On the motion “earnouts always end in tears”, it was argued that the main reason for this is that parties have different perceptions of when conditions are (or are not) met. This divergence may be caused by the seller’s lack of insight into the company after closing and the time period between closing and the dispute.
The discussion also covered disputes concerning guarantees (financial, environmental, and company-specific guarantees) and the development of M&A insurance, including warranty and indemnity insurance. M&A insurance has evolved from having an uncertain future to being widely accepted. These insurances are often convenient for buyers who can direct their claims against an insurer rather than the seller. This does not, however, mean that the seller is automatically free of claims, and proceedings against both the insurer and the seller can exist simultaneously.
The panel called for increased dialogue between dispute lawyers and M&A lawyers, who have much to learn from each other’s expertise and perspectives.
How to Cross-Examine Experts?
Ludvig Holm (Westerberg & Partners) addressed how to cross-examine experts brought in by the opposing party, sharing two main objectives of conducting a cross-examination. First, to strengthen your own arguments, and second, to make the tribunal question the expert.
He then went on to share five strategies for cross-examination:
- Make the tribunal question the expert’s impartiality, which can for example be done by presenting the expert with previous articles etc. that contradicts their statements in the current proceedings.
- Make the tribunal question the expert’s competence. This is often connected with the first point and seen in patent cases. However, this is a double-edged sword if you want to make use of the expert for your own case later. As such, consider whether it is worth undermining the expert’s competence.
- Prove or disprove the expert’s statements.
- Provoke inconsistent statements, which can cause uncertainty for the expert.
- Cause confusion. However, this tactic should be treated as a last resort, as it is difficult to cause confusion without appearing unprofessional to the tribunal.
Lastly, he emphasised that cross-examination is a difficult discipline that requires proper preparation, praising Irving Younger’s Ten Commandments of Cross-examination.
Building Your Personal Brand in Dispute Resolution
The final session of the day considered personal branding and the importance of networking, with panellists Carl Persson (Roschier), Daniel McKiernan (Gernandt & Danielsson), Sara Johnsson (Mannheimer Swartling), Mathilde Hofbauer (Snellman), and Maria Sundqvist (Wallin & Partners), moderated by Daniel Bjurbom (Roschier).
In the field of law, personal branding and relations are often underestimated, but they are just as important as legal competence. However, personal relations will only get you so far if you do not have the qualifications to back them up.
The panel stressed the importance of attending social events and suggested that networking is like any training. It may be easy to skip and instead go back to work, which will benefit you in the short run. However, in the long run, showing up for social events will benefit you more.
But networking is a marathon, not a sprint. It is not about meeting everybody but creating genuine connections. Avoid targeting specific individuals based on their likelihood of advancing your career, be yourself. And do not underestimate the value of your peers.
The panel emphasised that building your personal brand is not only about socialising, but also about being visible through articles, commentaries, and speaking on panels.
Conclusion
YAS Arbitration Day 2025 was formally concluded with Rikard Wikström-Hermansen presenting the YAS Prize for Best Arbitration Essay 2025 to Max Bodin (Cederquist) for his essay on the tribunal’s jurisdiction to examine set-off claims in international arbitration proceedings.
The event concluded with a keynote speech by Victor Malm, culture editor at Expressen and Swedish literary scholar. His reflections on literature, culture, and dialogue provided a thought‑provoking counterpoint to the day’s focus on the importance of collaboration and connection in arbitration to foster the next generation of Nordic arbitration practitioners.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jake Lowther refers to himself as a “civilized common law lawyer”, having first qualified in Australia and then in Sweden. He is currently Specialist Counsel at the SCC Arbitration Institute (“SCC”) in Stockholm. Prior to joining the SCC, Jake was an Associate in the M&A and dispute resolution teams at Nordic-Baltic law firm Magnusson. Before this Jake worked in Seoul, Korea as Foreign Legal Specialist at the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board’s international division, KCAB INTERNATIONAL. Jake also has experience of arbitration practice in Germany, which he obtained alongside completing the International Dispute Resolution LL.M. program at Humboldt-University of Berlin. Jake began his legal career at Ashurst in Australia, where he worked in the employment, M&A, and infrastructure teams.
Frederik Hummelmose is a law student at Aarhus University and a student worker at Gorrissen Federspiel. He is currently on a leave of absence while working as an Intern at the SCC Arbitration Institute (“SCC”). He is also a former professional handball player.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
