Tuomas Lehtinen

Partner, Member of the Finnish Bar, Ph.D. (Law)

Having worked in the legal field for almost thirty years, I have had time to dig into contract law issues related to international construction and projects, dispute resolution and banking.

I have years of experience in advising clients in challenging dispute proceedings in both international arbitrations and Finnish courts. I have served as an arbitrator in numerous domestic and international arbitration proceedings.

I specialise in international construction projects, international project agreements, bank guarantees and trade finance.

I am a Doctor of Laws and a docent in contract law and international trade law at the University of Turku. I was asked to serve as Professor of Practice in Advocacy at the University of Helsinki for the period of 2018–2022 on a part-time basis. I wrote my dissertation, which has been used at universities as teaching material, on international trade contracts and documentary credits. I have also authored several books and articles on international contracts and guarantees. I am a frequent lecturer at universities and seminars. I regularly lecture for court judges and in the Ministry of Justice.

Thanks to my role as the vice-chairman of a subcommittee of IBA’s International Construction Projects Committee, I have a broad international network, which our clients benefit from in international arbitrations and disputes.

Chambers Europe, Chambers Global and Best Lawyers rank me among Finland’s leading legal experts. Clients appreciate my long experience, my deep expertise, my negotiation skills and my ability to approach clients’ questions from the perspective of business.

Latest references

We successfully advised the Finnish State/the Ministry of Justice in a declaratory action in which the Helsinki Court of Appeal dismissed the claims of businessman Peter Fryckman and confirmed the non-existence of an arbitration agreement. Fryckman had filed for arbitration before The Hague’s Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in February 2018. The request was based on a claim that the Finnish Minister of Justice had signed a consent to arbitration between Fryckman and the Finnish State in the PCA. The State denied the existence of an arbitration agreement in its response to the request for arbitration and refused to appoint its own arbitrator. The Secretary-General of the PCA deemed that the document titled ‘Declaration of Consent’ was too ambiguous and general in nature, and therefore he could not appoint an arbitrator for the State to an arbitration conducted under the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012. After this, Fryckman requested that the District Court confirm the existence of an arbitration agreement between him and the Finnish State, under which disputes between the parties concerning tax and debt collection actions against Fryckman and his companies, as well as the resulting damages, would be settled before the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.  However, the District Court dismissed this action because the consent signed by the Minister of Justice was general in nature, its content was unspecified, and it was unclear whether the consent was even a matter that could be arbitrated. Furthermore, the District Court deemed that the consent signed by the Minister of Justice and the plaintiff’s application for commencement of arbitration were not identical and reciprocal, and there was no evidence of an agreement between the parties as to the commitment to and content of the agreement. Fryckman appealed the District Court’s decision to the Court of Appeal, but in its judgement of December 2022, the Court of Appeal deemed that there was no cause to amend the District Court’s decision. The Court of Appeal found that the expression of will in the document titled ‘Declaration of Consent’ had not been made in accordance with the Ministry of Justice’s procedure for presentation and decision-making. According to the Court of Appeal, due to this key fault in the Ministry’s procedure, the free-form expression of will by the Minister did not have a binding effect on the parties. The Court of Appeal remarked that the plaintiff’s actions bore characteristics of an intent to bypass the Ministry’s customary procedure for decision-making. The Court of Appeal also noted that the Minister’s expression of will was encumbered by deficiencies in arbitrability and the subject matter of the consent as stated by the District Court, and referred to the grounds stated by the District Court in other respects as well. On 5 May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that no leave to appeal would be granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is therefore final.
Case published 27.6.2023
We represented FinnHEMS Oy, the company in charge of Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (HEMS) operations in Finland, in set-aside proceedings. In 2016, an arbitral tribunal rendered an award dismissing the claims presented by FinnHEMS against one of its service providers. The arbitral tribunal accepted that the service provider had breached the agreement, but decided not to award any compensation to FinnHEMS, as the arbitral tribunal considered FinnHEMS to have failed to give notice of the breaches within a reasonable time. However, the service provider had not invoked failure to give notice as grounds for disputing the claim during the arbitration. Consequently, FinnHEMS initiated set-aside proceedings in the District Court of Helsinki. The District Court of Helsinki accepted FinnHEMS’ action and set the award aside. The service provider appealed to the Helsinki Court of Appeal, which also found in favour of FinnHEMS. Both the District Court of Helsinki and the Helsinki Court of Appeal accepted FinnHEMS’ argument that the arbitral tribunal had failed to provide FinnHEMS with sufficient opportunity to present its case and had exceeded its jurisdiction when basing its award on grounds not invoked by the parties in the arbitration. The Supreme Court did not grant the service provider leave of appeal, making the decision by the Helsinki Court of Appeal final.  The threshold for a court to set aside an award is high. Arbitral awards are meant to be final and can only be challenged on very limited grounds. All in all, there is very little legal praxis available relating to set-aside proceedings and even less so where an arbitral award has actually been set aside. Nevertheless, FinnHEMS was able to show that the arbitral tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to provide FinnHEMS with sufficient opportunity to present its case to such a degree that the arbitral award was set aside. The final decision by the Helsinki Court of Appeal is noteworthy and rare in Finland and provides good guidance for future cases with respect to the limits of the powers of arbitral tribunals.
Case published 11.5.2020
We advised the Finnish Defence Forces Logistics Command in the Squadron 2020 project. Squadron 2020 is the Finnish Navy’s project that is aimed at replacing seven vessels that the Navy will decommission. These will be replaced by four modern corvettes. Rauma Marine Constructions Oy and RMC Defence Oy based in Rauma will construct four multi-purpose corvettes, called the Pohjanmaa Class, for the Squadron 2020 project. Saab AB from Sweden was selected as the  combat system supplier. The Pohjanmaa Class will form the backbone of the Finnish Navy’s capability and combat vessel fleet and is planned to remain in service until the 2050s. The total cost of the Squadron 2020 project is approx. EUR 1,300 million.
Case published 16.3.2020
We assisted Pharmaca Health Intelligence in its acquisition of Mediaattori Ltd’s PODIUM Connect® and PODIUM Visits businesses. Through the acquisition, Pharmaca Health Intelligence strengthens its extensive service offerings in medical information, data-driven management, and education for both healthcare and pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaca Health Intelligence is a pioneer in digital medical information and a reliable partner for wellbeing services counties, the private healthcare sector and pharmacies. The company invests in the development of technology and service solutions related to pharmaceutical information, also on an international scale.
Case published 5.12.2024
We advised Gasum Oy in its acquisition of 100% of the shares in Hærup Biogas ApS, which owns and operates a biogas plant in the northern part of mainland Denmark. This acquisition marks Gasum’s first biogas plant in Denmark, expanding its biogas production portfolio. Gasum’s strategic goal is to bring seven terawatt hours of renewable gas to the Nordic market yearly by 2027. The acquisition is one step towards achieving the strategic goal. Gasum is a Nordic gas sector and energy market expert. Gasum offers cleaner energy and energy market expert services for industry and for combined heat and power production as well as cleaner fuel solutions for road and maritime transport. The company helps its customers to reduce their own carbon footprint as well as that of their customers. 
Case published 3.12.2024
We are advising Helkama-Autokauppa Oy in the acquisition of the Škoda dealerships in Helsinki and Tampere from Hedin Automotive Finland. The transaction is subject to regulatory approval. Helkama-Autokauppa Oy operates as an independent dealer in the dealer network of Helkama-Auto Oy, the Finnish importer of Škoda cars, spare parts and accessories.
Case published 3.12.2024
We advised Huhtamaki Oyj in relation to a EUR 450 million sustainability-linked syndicated multi-currency revolving credit facility loan agreement (“RCF”) with a maturity of five years. The RCF refinances an existing EUR 400 million sustainability-linked syndicated revolving credit facility signed in January 2021 and will be used for general corporate purposes of the Group. The RCF has two one-year extension options at the discretion of the lenders. The Mandated Lead Arrangers and Bookrunners of the RCF are Citi, Nordea Bank Abp, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (publ), BNP Paribas, Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft, Danske Bank A/S, DBS Bank Ltd., London Branch, J.P. Morgan SE, Landesbank Hessen-Thüringen Girozentrale, OP Corporate Bank plc, Raiffeisen Bank International AG and Standard Chartered Bank AG.
Case published 28.11.2024
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