Litigation and arbitration are the two dominant methods of resolving commercial disputes in Sweden, and both are adversarial in nature. For high-value commercial disputes, arbitration is the preferred forum. Sweden – and Stockholm in particular – is one of the world’s leading arbitration seats, with the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) administering a significant volume of both domestic and international proceedings each year.

Litigation is conducted before the general courts, organized in three tiers: district courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court. Mediation is available but has not gained significant traction in Swedish commercial practice, though interest in alternative dispute resolution is growing and mediation may become more prevalent in the years ahead.

The choice between litigation and arbitration turns on several factors, of which confidentiality is among the most significant. Arbitral proceedings are confidential by default; court proceedings are governed by the principle of public access (Sw. offentlighetsprincipen) and are generally open to the public. The finality of arbitral awards, which are not subject to appeal on the merits, and the procedural flexibility and speed that arbitration affords are further considerations that frequently weigh in favour of arbitration in sophisticated commercial disputes.

That said, Swedish court proceedings are not without confidentiality protections. Under the Swedish Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act (Sw. offentlighets- och sekretesslagen), courts are required to consider of their own motion whether information concerning a private party’s business or operations should be withheld from the public, and may restrict access where disclosure can be assumed to cause that party harm. See further question 5 below.

The Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure (Sw. rättegångsbalken) is the primary source of procedural law and governs commercial litigation before the general courts. The Code establishes an adversarial system that accords the parties substantial autonomy over the scope and conduct of proceedings.

Certain categories of dispute are governed in whole or in part by specific procedural legislation. Intellectual property disputes fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Patent and Market Court (Sw. Patent- och marknadsdomstolen). Competition law and labour law matters are similarly subject to specialist procedural regimes. In each of these areas, the Code of Judicial Procedure applies as a supplementary source where the special legislation does not otherwise provide.

Commercial litigation in Sweden is administered by the general courts, which are structured in three tiers: 48 district courts (Sw. tingsrätter) at first instance, six courts of appeal (Sw. hovrätter), and the Supreme Court (Sw. Högsta domstolen) as the court of last resort. Each tier is divided geographically. All district courts have jurisdiction over commercial claims. Several of the larger courts have established dedicated commercial divisions for more substantial and complex disputes; Stockholms tingsrätt, for example, operates a specialist commercial division that handles a significant share of large-scale commercial litigation in Sweden.

Certain categories of dispute are subject to mandatory jurisdiction rules that concern them before specific courts: including in the areas of maritime law, intellectual property, competition, and labour.

The time from commencement of proceedings to a first-instance judgment typically falls in the range of one to two years, though complex, document-heavy disputes frequently take longer. An appeal to the court of appeal, for which leave must be sought and is generally granted in larger commercial matters, adds approximately a further year. Supreme Court proceedings, where leave is granted on grounds of precedential value or extraordinary circumstances, add additional time and remain a rare outcome.

Arbitration seated in Sweden is generally resolved more expeditiously, reflecting the greater procedural flexibility available to the parties and the tribunal in designing a timetable suited to the particular dispute.

The principle of public access (Sw. offentlighetsprincipen) is a cornerstone of the Swedish constitutional order. Court hearings are generally open to the public, and documents submitted to or issued by the courts are public records accessible to any person. This principle applies in full to commercial litigation.

Exceptions exist, however. Under the Swedish Public Access to Information and Secrecy Act, a court must consider of its own motion whether information concerning a private party’s business or operations should be withheld from the public, and may impose confidentiality where disclosure can be assumed to cause that party harm. A party may draw the court’s attention to the issue, but the obligation to assess and decide rests with the court alone. This stands in marked contrast to arbitration, where confidentiality is the default position and operates without any need for a court order or judicial intervention.

Limitation periods in Sweden operate on two distinct bases. The first is prescription (Sw. preskription), which extinguishes a claim after the expiry of a set period. The second is preclusion (Sw. preklusion), where the right to bring a claim, or rely on a particular ground, is lost upon failure to act within a prescribed time, irrespective of the general prescription rules.

Under the Swedish Limitations Act (Sw. preskriptionslagen), the general prescriptive period is ten years from the date a claim arises, subject to any contrary agreement or specific statutory provision. Consumer claims are subject to a three-year period. Claims towards consumers under negotiable instruments (Sw. löpande skuldebrev) carry a three-year period under the Promissory Notes Act (Sw. skuldebrevslagen).The prescriptive period may be interrupted by the debtor acknowledging the debt – whether by payment, by paying interest or instalments, or by express acknowledgment – by the creditor serving a written demand, or by the commencement of legal proceedings. Each interruption restarts the prescriptive period. A fresh period also begins upon the conclusion of legal proceedings.

Preclusion arises in a number of commercially significant contexts. Late notification of a defect or breach – for instance under the Sale of Goods Act (Sw. köplagen) or the Consumer Services Act (Sw. konsumenttjänstlagen), may bar a claim entirely, regardless of whether the prescriptive period has expired. Certain statutory causes of action are also subject to their own time limits for bringing proceedings: claims for damages under the Public Procurement Act (Sw. lagen om offentlig upphandling), for example, must be brought within one year from the date on which the claimant obtained knowledge, or should have obtained knowledge, that a contract had been concluded.

There are no general pre-action conduct requirements applicable to commercial litigation in Sweden, and failure to engage with the opposing party before commencing proceedings does not as a rule constitute a procedural bar to bringing a claim. It is, however, common for commercial contracts to incorporate multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses requiring the parties to attempt negotiation before resorting to litigation or arbitration. Non-compliance with such a clause should not generally result in the claim being dismissed, but may expose the non-complying party to liability in damages or an adverse costs order. In employment matters, specific legislation may require prior negotiation before proceedings are commenced, and failure to comply with those requirements can in some cases affect the admissibility of a claim. Members of the Swedish Bar Association are also subject to a professional obligation – enforceable through disciplinary proceedings rather than by the courts – to afford the opposing party a reasonable opportunity to consider any claim and explore settlement before legal action is initiated.

Proceedings are commenced by filing a statement of claim (Sw. stämningsansökan) with the competent court and paying the applicable registration fee, currently SEK 2,800. The claimant may seek either a performance order compelling the defendant to discharge an obligation (Sw. fullgörelsetalan) or a declaratory judgment as to the existence or content of a legal relationship (Sw. fastställelsetalan). A declaratory action is available where uncertainty as to the relevant legal relationship is prejudicial to the claimant and the court considers it appropriate to examine the issue.

Service of the statement of claim on the defendant is the responsibility of the court, which carries out this function efficiently and without undue delay. Direct service by a party is permitted only where the court has expressly authorised it. Where a claim is undisputed, the appropriate forum is not the court but the Swedish Enforcement Agency (Sw. Kronofogdemyndigheten), before which an application for an order to pay (Sw. betalningsföreläggande) should be filed.

The court examines its jurisdiction sua sponte immediately upon payment of the registration fee. Where the statement of claim discloses grounds for doubt, the court will typically issue a remedial order requiring the claimant to demonstrate that the chosen court has jurisdiction before any further step is taken. The burden of establishing jurisdiction lies with the claimant.

In disputes with an international dimension, the court applies the relevant EU instruments directly – in particular the recast Brussels I Regulation (No 1215/2012), which governs jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters where the defendant is domiciled in an EU member state.

For most categories of dispute, the parties may agree on jurisdiction by a choice of court agreement. Certain categories of dispute are subject to mandatory fora that cannot be overridden by agreement.

The applicable law is determined by reference to binding international instruments or, in their absence, to national conflict of laws rules. In commercial disputes with an international dimension, the governing EU instruments are Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I), which addresses the law applicable to contractual obligations, and Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), which addresses non-contractual obligations. Both regulations give broad effect to the parties’ choice of law, subject to overriding mandatory provisions and public policy. Where the governing law is in dispute, the court may resolve the issue by way of a separate interlocutory judgment. The court is required to raise the choice of law question of its own motion in disputes with an international element, but may only act on facts that have been duly pleaded by the parties.

Claims may be resolved before trial in a number of ways. Procedural impediments, including lack of jurisdiction and res judicata, must be considered by the court sua sponte and will result in dismissal where established. A claim will also be disposed of without trial where the parties reach a settlement, where the defendant concedes the claim in full, or where the claim is manifestly unfounded on its face. Default judgment may be entered where the defendant, having been duly served, fails either to file a statement of defence or to appear at a hearing.

Chapter 15 of the Code of Judicial Procedure provides for a range of interim measures designed to safeguard a claimant’s position pending determination of the dispute on the merits. The principal remedy is a freezing order, but the court may also grant injunctive relief of broader scope, including orders requiring or prohibiting specific conduct by the respondent. The applicant bears strict liability for any loss caused to the respondent by interim measures granted, and adequate security, typically in the form of a bank guarantee or equivalent instrument, is a prerequisite in all but exceptional cases. Where urgency so requires, measures may be granted ex parte, with the respondent given an opportunity to be heard at a subsequent stage; this is conditional on a demonstrable risk that delay would cause harm (periculum in mora).

Where a dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, the availability of interim relief from the general courts is preserved. Under Section 49 of the Swedish Arbitration Act (Sw. lagen om skiljeförfarande), a party may apply to the court for interim measures notwithstanding that arbitral proceedings have already been commenced.

Once the statement of claim has been served on the defendant, the defendant is ordered to file a written statement of defence, typically within three weeks, setting out its position on the claims made and the relief sought. The court will then generally convene a preparatory hearing at which the issues are refined, evidence is identified, and a procedural timetable is established. The parties may thereafter file further rounds of written submissions as their cases develop. It is standard practice for the court to impose a cut-off date after which, subject to narrow exceptions, no new facts or evidence may be advanced.

The overall timetabling of Swedish court proceedings is considerably less flexible than in arbitration, where the parties and tribunal may design a bespoke procedural calendar tailored to the needs of the particular dispute.

Sweden does not have a system of pre-trial discovery of the kind found in common law jurisdictions. There is no general obligation on parties to disclose relevant documents in their possession prior to or upon commencement of proceedings, and pre-trial disclosure is accordingly very limited.

Once proceedings are underway, however, a party may apply to the court for an order requiring the production of specific documents or defined categories of documents by the counterparty or a third party (Sw. edition). Speculative requests, so-called fishing expeditions, are not permitted. A production order will be granted where the applicant establishes that: (i) the documents are identified with sufficient specificity, whether individually or by reference to a particular evidential theme; (ii) the documents are reasonably assumed to be relevant as evidence – a low threshold; (iii) the documents are likely to be in the possession of the respondent; and (iv) a proportionality assessment favours production. Following a ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Swedish Supreme Court has confirmed that the General Data Protection Regulation must be taken into account in the proportionality assessment, and may in some cases result in a production order being refused or curtailed.

A party may also seek to have a witness heard for the limited purpose of establishing whether particular documents exist and who holds them. Documents protected by legal professional privilege are exempt from production. Trade secrets and personal notes are similarly protected, though may be subject to production where extraordinary reasons so justify. Separately, a party may require the counterparty to identify any documentary evidence in its possession that has not yet been submitted to the court.

A witness summoned to give evidence in Swedish court proceedings is required by law to appear in person and give oral testimony under oath. Written witness statements are permitted only in limited and prescribed circumstances and are very rarely used in practice. Evidence is ordinarily given at the main hearing.

The examination-in-chief is conducted by the party who called the witness, after which the opposing party may cross-examine. Re-examination by the calling party follows. The court retains the right to ask questions and seek clarifications, though it exercises this right infrequently. Leading questions are impermissible during examination-in-chief but are permitted, and routinely employed, in cross-examination.

Arbitration in Sweden follows a markedly different approach. Written witness statements submitted in advance of the hearing are standard practice, consistent with the prevailing norms of international arbitration as reflected in, among other instruments, the IBA Rules on Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. Depositions have no place in Swedish civil procedure.

Expert evidence is both permitted and common, and plays a central role in technically and financially complex disputes. Experts may be appointed by the court or by the parties; court appointment is rare in practice and party-appointed experts are the norm. Both categories of expert are generally required to produce a written opinion and to give oral evidence at the main hearing.

Party-appointed experts are subject to the same obligations as witnesses and are compensated on that basis. Court-appointed experts, by contrast, owe their duty to the court rather than to any party and are treated as officers of the court; the court determines their terms of reference. In practice, expert evidence in Swedish commercial litigation is almost invariably party-appointed, and the weight accorded to competing expert opinions is a matter for the court’s assessment.

Swedish procedural law distinguishes between judgments (Sw. domar), which determine the merits, and decisions (Sw. beslut), which address other matters. Within each category, further distinctions apply.

Final judgments (Sw. slutliga domar) and separate judgments (Sw. mellandom) may be appealed to the relevant court of appeal within three weeks of the date of judgment, and further to the Supreme Court within four weeks. Final decisions (Sw. slutliga beslut), such as a decision to dismiss a claim, are subject to separate appeal within the time prescribed by law. Non-final decisions (Sw. icke-slutliga beslut) may only be separately appealed where expressly permitted by law; otherwise they may be challenged only together with the final judgment. Interim decisions (Sw. interimistiska beslut) on urgent matters, most commonly interim relief, are subject to separate appeal.

Leave to appeal is required at all levels above the district court. A court of appeal grants leave where: (i) there are grounds to believe the lower court erred; (ii) the correctness of the decision cannot otherwise be assessed; (iii) the case raises a question of value for the guidance of future cases; or (iv) there are extraordinary reasons. The Supreme Court grants leave only on grounds (iii) or (iv), and does so sparingly. Swedish courts do not provide detailed reasoning for their decisions on not granting leave to appeal, which can complicate the assessment of appeal prospects.

The enforceability of a foreign judgment in Sweden depends on whether a relevant legal basis exists under Swedish law, EU law, or an international convention to which Sweden is a party. Judgments from other EU member states benefit from direct enforceability under the recast Brussels I Regulation (No 1215/2012). Judgments from states party to the Lugano Convention – Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland – may be enforced through a formal exequatur procedure before a designated district court; this is a procedural mechanism and the court does not reopen the merits of the underlying dispute. Sweden is also bound, through EU membership, by the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, which provides a further basis for enforcement in certain contractual contexts.

Through its EU membership, Sweden is also bound by the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, which entered into force for the EU, and accordingly for Sweden, on 1 September 2023. The Convention provides a further basis for enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters, complementing the existing treaty framework.

Foreign arbitral awards are enforceable in Sweden under the 1958 New York Convention and are generally subject to a more straightforward enforcement regime than foreign court judgments. Enforcement of both judgments and awards may be refused on grounds of public policy (ordre public) or, in the case of foreign state parties, state immunity.

Generally, the losing party must compensate the successful party for its litigation costs (the “loser pays” principle). Recoverable costs include legal fees, the costs of party-appointed experts, and the fees of other professionals engaged in connection with the proceedings, such as translators and forensic specialists. The court assesses the reasonableness of claimed costs by reference to the complexity of the dispute, the duration of the proceedings, and the amounts at stake. Partial success may result in an apportioned costs order. The same principle applies in arbitration, where the prevailing party is generally entitled to recover its reasonable costs, though arbitral tribunals exercise somewhat broader discretion in determining how costs are allocated between the parties.

Class actions are available in Sweden but remain exceptional in practice. The procedure is governed by the Group Proceedings Act (Sw. lagen om grupprättegång), which operates alongside, and in certain respects derogates from, the Code of Judicial Procedure. An action may be brought by a private individual, an approved organisation, or a public authority on behalf of a defined class of claimants. Before the proceedings may continue on the merits, the court must determine that the case is suitable for group proceedings under the criteria set out in the Act. Despite the availability of the mechanism, class actions rarely progress to a substantive hearing, primarily due to the stringent admissibility requirements and the practical difficulties of securing adequate litigation funding.

A party to pending proceedings who has a claim against a third party that depends on the outcome of those proceedings may apply for a summons to bring the third party into the proceedings and seek consolidation. Conversely, a third party wishing to assert a claim against one or more parties to pending proceedings may initiate its own action and seek consolidation with the existing case.

Consolidation is mandatory where a single claimant brings multiple actions against the same defendant on substantially the same grounds, and where multiple claimants or defendants are involved in actions arising from substantially the same factual basis. A defendant may also introduce a counterclaim and seek to have it heard together with the main proceedings.

Beyond these mandatory cases, consolidation of proceedings between the same or different parties is available on a discretionary basis where it would serve the efficient conduct of the litigation. The court retains the power to order separation at a later stage if circumstances change.

Third-party intervention is available where the intervener can demonstrate that the outcome of the proceedings is likely to affect its legal rights or obligations, or its position in subsequent litigation to which it would be a party.

Third-party litigation funding is permitted in Sweden and is becoming an established feature of the market. Historically uncommon, the practice has grown significantly as domestic and international funders have entered the Swedish market. Several considerations require attention when structuring a funding arrangement: the potential for conflicts of interest where counsel is a member of the Swedish Bar Association; the impact of the funding structure on the funded party’s ability to recover costs from the opposing party; and questions of control, settlement authority, and the funder’s influence over the conduct of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court has held that the corporate veil may be pierced where a party has been created primarily to avoid exposure to an adverse costs award. Whether this principle is capable of extension to a third-party funder, so as to make the funder directly liable for the opposing party’s costs, remains to be determined, but the risk cannot be excluded depending on the facts. There is currently no legislative framework specifically regulating third-party funding in Sweden; the market operates on a purely contractual basis, and established international market practice provides the primary point of reference.

Sweden’s principal attraction as a forum for the resolution of international commercial disputes is its reputation for institutional integrity, judicial independence, and strict adherence to the rule of law. Swedish court proceedings are reliable, efficient by the standards of public adjudication, and broadly predictable in outcome. The procedure is adversarial and party-driven in a manner broadly analogous to commercial or international arbitration, under e.g. the Rules of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC). the district courts in the major cities Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö have the competence and experience to handle substantial and complex commercial disputes.

The main structural disadvantage is the absence of a specialist commercial court. All commercial litigation, irrespective of size or complexity, is heard by the general courts. While many judges handling commercial matters are highly capable, there is inevitably variation in the depth of commercial specialisation across the system. An arbitral tribunal, by contrast, can be constituted specifically to bring the relevant expertise to the dispute, which in cases raising complex financial, technical, or industry-specific issues represents a material advantage over court adjudication.

Regulatory disputes are expected to grow, driven by intensified supervisory activity and enforcement across the financial sector. Swedish regulatory authorities have become more active, and the resulting friction between regulated entities and their regulators is generating an increasing volume of contentious work.

Post-insolvency litigation is also expected to remain a significant source of commercial disputes, against the backdrop of a challenging macroeconomic environment and a series of high-profile corporate insolvencies and restructurings.

Disputes connected to artificial intelligence, including questions of liability allocation, ownership of AI-generated works, and compliance with the emerging EU and national regulatory framework, are anticipated to emerge as a structurally new and growing area of commercial litigation as AI becomes more deeply embedded in commercial operations.

Geopolitical instability continues to generate disputes arising from the application of economic sanctions, the imposition of tariffs, and growing trade protectionism, with particular relevance for the energy, natural resources, infrastructure, and transportation sectors. ESG-related litigation, including claims based on greenwashing and climate-related liability, is also expected to increase materially as the applicable legal frameworks in this area reach maturity.

Swedish courts have embraced technological modernisation for a number of years and are comparatively advanced by international standards. Court proceedings are administered electronically as standard; electronic powers of attorney are accepted; remote witness evidence by telephone or video conference is routine; and courtrooms are generally equipped for sophisticated electronic presentation. The pace of digitalisation is expected to accelerate further.

The more significant development over the next five years is likely to be the integration of artificial intelligence into the litigation process itself. AI tools are already in use among Swedish law firms for legal research, contract analysis, and large-scale document review, and their deployment will deepen. Questions that are expected to attract increasing attention, both in academic discourse and in proceedings before the courts, include the admissibility and weight of AI-generated evidence and the appropriate role, if any, of AI-assisted tools in judicial analysis and decision-making. How Swedish courts and legislators respond to these questions will have material implications for the conduct of commercial litigation.