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, Lia Heasman & Robin Ollus
Tuomas Lehtinen & Jerker Pitkänen
Latest references
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
A large Finnish group – Construction contract dispute
We represented a mutual real estate company belonging to a large Finnish group in arbitration proceedings against a construction company. The arbitral tribunal rejected the construction company’s claims in their entirety and ordered the construction company to reimburse our client for the costs of the arbitration proceedings in full. The dispute concerned the contract price under the construction contract, which was agreed to be determined on the basis of our client’s yield requirement and the rent under the lease agreement for the building in question. The parties disagreed on the indexation clause applicable to the rent adjustment and its impact on the contract price.
Case published 22.11.2024