Dispute resolution has a lot in common with long-distance endurance sports, such as that fixture of Finnish athletics, the 50-kilometre cross-country skiing event. Case in point, a dispute that we were handling that had its start in the 2008 financial crisis didn’t receive a final judgment until last year.
4.3.2021
Contractual Risks Materialise as Disputes
Anders Forss & Marko Hentunen
Related services
The number of disputes is on the rise again. The COVID-19 pandemic in particular has caused companies to encounter unforeseen and rapidly emerging risks. At the same time, Brexit, climate change, digitalisation, sustainability requirements and the general increase in regulation also breed conflict.
While these are not all novel phenomena, their legal impacts remain uncertain. That said, it is also true that few contractual disputes are entirely unforeseen, as some level of risk-taking is inherent in commercial transactions.
Risks can be minimised through careful contract drafting. The COVID-19 pandemic has moved the spotlight of force majeure clauses from more traditional topics, such as natural disasters, to infectious diseases. It has also highlighted how important it is to agree in as much detail as possible on what kinds of circumstances may release a party from performance under the agreement at hand.
Other uncertainties, such as the legal impacts of Brexit can be mitigated by studying the legal instruments replacing the UK’s and EU’s regulations concerning conflict of laws and the recognition and enforcement of judgments.
Disputes arising out of climate change and regulatory reforms will be resolved over the coming years in both national courts and international arbitration proceedings. In this context, it could be noted that Finland has a comprehensive portfolio of investment treaties. These treaties guarantee investors fair and equitable treatment by the signatory countries and could entitle investors to compensation, for example, if a country alters its regulatory framework in an unforeseeable and discriminatory manner.
Companies will continue to be subject to an increasing number of changes and unforeseen circumstances. Most of the disputes arising from the risks and consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic still remain ahead of us.
Latest insights
Article published 9.4.2025 – Dispute Resolution
New European Court of Justice ruling C-537/23 sheds light on the interpretation and validity of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses – Implications for European businesses
Article published 5.9.2024 – Data & Technology
Technology acquisitions can boost companies’ growth – or cause them to fail
Article published 29.4.2024 – ESG and Corporate Sustainability
Landmark judgment of European Court on Human Rights paves the way for climate change litigation in Europe – potential impacts on European businesses
Article published 25.3.2024 – Dispute Resolution
First demand guarantees are excellent securities, but using them requires diligence
Robin Ollus & Tuomas Lehtinen
Topi Lusenius, Anders Forss & Kim Parviainen
Anna Kuusniemi-Laine & Robin Ollus
Tuomas Lehtinen & Jerker Pitkänen
Latest references
VR – Supreme Court decision clarifies working time practices
We successfully represented VR Group before the Supreme Court in a case concerning the meal break practice of commuter train drivers. On 6 February 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in VR’s favour (decision KKO:2026:12), confirming that VR had the right to amend the commuter train drivers’ meal break practice in 2021 by rendering the break unpaid in accordance with the applicable collective agreement. This decision clarifies the interpretation of collective agreements and employment legislation as well as the limits of the employer’s right to direct work. Over 250 commuter train drivers challenged the unpaid meal break practice which VR introduced in April 2021. Before the change, meal breaks had a long history of being paid. The change was based on the train drivers’ collective agreement, which allows for meal breaks to be organised either as paid or unpaid time. The Supreme Court ruled that the scheduling and managing of breaks falls within the core area of the employer’s right to direct work. This increases the threshold for an established practice becoming a binding condition for the parties. Merely following a practice consistently and over a long period of time does not make the practice binding; instead, the employer’s intent to commit to the practice must be clearly evident from the employer’s conduct or other circumstances. As both alternatives – paid and unpaid – for organising meal breaks had been retained in the collective agreement despite other amendments over the years, it could not be considered that VR had intended to commit to the paid break practice and waive its right to direct work as regards break scheduling. It was also significant that the employment contracts explicitly referred only to the collective agreement as regards working time. The Supreme Court deemed that the employees’ paid meal break was not an established term of employment and that VR was entitled to change the practice based on the collective agreement. The employer had the right, by virtue of its right to direct work, to unilaterally change the meal break practice by choosing to apply the other arrangement permitted by the collective agreement.
Case published 3.3.2026
International reinsurance companies – Ad hoc arbitration proceedings
We successfully represented a panel of reinsurance companies in an international ad hoc arbitration. The dispute arose out of a reinsurance treaty under the terms of which the reinsurers had reinsured a portfolio of risks underwritten by the cedent. The parties disagreed as to whether the reinsurance provided coverage for a certain loss that had occurred because of the market turmoil caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The case involved highly complex legal and contractual questions requiring special expertise on reinsurance law and practice. The arbitral tribunal rejected the counterparty’s claims for reinsurance compensation against our clients in full. The amount in dispute was approximately EUR 34 million.
Case published 16.9.2025
Trety – Dispute and settlement negotiations concerning a development and production agreement
We successfully represented Trety AB in a dispute and settlement negotiations concerning an agreement for development and production of communication devices for the healthcare sector. Eventually, the parties reached an amicable settlement to the full satisfaction of our client and thus the parties avoided an extensive arbitral proceeding. Trety AB is a global company that provides its customers with solutions for development, industrialization and production of electronics. Trety AB has over 30 years’ experience from IT, electronics and telecommunication industries.
Case published 11.2.2025
Finnish manufacturing company – Arbitration proceedings under the SCC rules
We successfully represented a Finnish manufacturing company in arbitration proceedings under the SCC rules against a global construction company. The dispute was governed by Finnish law and the seat of arbitration was Stockholm, Sweden. The dispute mainly concerned the termination of an erection contract and the right to compensation for delays of the project and for cost increases due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The main questions in dispute were the lawfulness of the termination of the erection contract as well as the consequences of the termination such as the right to costs to complete the project after termination, the right to liquidated damages for delay of the project and adjustment of contract price due to cost increases. The total value of the dispute exceeded EUR 15 million.
Case published 8.1.2025