DENMARK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jakob Lentz, Johannes Grove Nielsen, Camilla Hudson and Rasmus Schmidt, Bech-Bruun
of the case. However, in its protocol, the tribunal stat - ed that it had noted the claim was not undisputed, but it nevertheless considered the interest claim justified by the circumstances of the case. The District Court held that Section 37 of the Dan - ish Arbitration Act provides an exhaustive list of the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award and that Danish courts may not review the merits of an award. The Court also emphasised that the public policy ground is a narrow exception, applicable only in extraordinary cases involving errors of an exception - ally serious nature that render the award manifestly incompatible with Danish ordre public. The Court found that Nordstern had not advanced arguments in support of its interest claim in its final written submission and that the interest claim was not supported by evidence submitted in the arbitration. The Court further found that the tribunal had treated the interest claim as undisputed without conducting an independent assessment of the evidence, even though Rambøll had disputed it as undocumented. On that basis, the Court held that Rambøll had estab - lished that the tribunal had violated Rambøll’s right to be heard in relation to the interest claim. The District Court concluded that the tribunal had committed extraordinarily serious errors by awarding a disputed interest claim as undisputed, in circum - stances where neither submissions nor evidence in the arbitration supported the claim. As a result, the interest part of the award was manifestly incompat - ible with Danish ordre public. The interest part of the award was therefore set aside under Section 37 (2)(1) (b) and Section 37 (2)(2)(b) of the Danish Arbitration Act. Nordstern was ordered to acknowledge that the award was invalid and non-binding on Rambøll in rela - tion to the procedural interest awarded for the period from 8 June 2017 to 17 September 2018 and to repay DKK 256,056.75 to Rambøll with interest. The judgment is a rare example of a Danish court set - ting aside part of an arbitral award, while also confirm - ing the restrictive approach to judicial review of arbitral awards. It is therefore best understood not as a depar - ture from the finality of arbitration, but as a reminder
that finality depends on compliance with fundamental procedural safeguards, including the right to be heard. Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award In March 2025, the Danish Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling on the enforcement of foreign arbi - tral awards; see decision in U 2025.1922 H. The case concerned two parties, A and B, who entered into an agreement in 2017. The agreement included a clause for arbitration before the Shanghai Arbitration Com - mission (SHAC). B initiated arbitration in June 2020, seeking inter alia cancellation of the agreement and repayment of its investment. A did not participate in the arbitration, leading to a default award in favour of B in November 2020. B subsequently attempted to enforce this award in Denmark, where A was domi - ciled. The Supreme Court was tasked with the determina - tion of whether the arbitral award could be enforced in Denmark, including whether the defendant, A, had received proper notice of the arbitration proceedings as required under Article V(1)(b) of the 1958 New York Convention and Section 39 (1)(1)(b) of the Danish Arbi - tration Act. A claimed he had not been notified, while B claimed the notice was served in accordance with the applicable SHAC rules. In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of notifying a party about arbitration pro - ceedings to allow it to present its case. Without such notice, enforcement of the arbitral award is not justi - fied. According to Section 39 (1)(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act, the burden of proof lies with the party oppos - ing enforcement. In continuation of this, the Supreme Court stated that this evidentiary assessment must take into account that it can be difficult to prove that a party has not been notified. According to the Supreme Court, there will therefore be grounds for refusing to recognise and enforce an arbitral award if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the party has been notified of the arbitration proceedings. In this case, the SHAC sent notification letters to two different Chinese addresses linked to A. The Supreme Court found that although the SHAC had considered the notice served on A in accordance with applicable
297 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook