Dispute Resolution

Dispute Resolution

A truly international arbitration team providing high standard advice with personable, pragmatic service.

GAR 100

A dispute can seriously disrupt your business. As our client, you can be confident that your case is in the best hands.

We handle complex disputes for international and Finnish clients. Even the most challenging situations can be resolved when you are advised by the right people. You will have our team of tier 1 experts dedicated to your case. Our approach combines a keen strategic eye with efficient project management.

Internationally recognised team of attorneys

Our distinguished dispute resolution team has an excellent reputation for successfully advising clients across various industries. We represent clients in general courts and administrative proceedings in Finland. In addition, we have vast experience of international arbitration conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the FAI, ICC, LCIA, SCC, DIS, the Swiss Rules, and the UNCITRAL Rules. Through our international network of law firms, you will have access to the best lawyers wherever you do business.

Our team is recognised as the leading dispute resolution practice in Finland. We are consistently ranked as a tier 1 practice by renowned publications, such as Chambers, The Legal 500 and Benchmark Litigation, and we are particularly proud of being listed among the world’s top firms in Global Arbitration Review’s GAR 100 guide to specialist international arbitration practices.

Our expertise covers:

  • M&A disputes

  • energy disputes
  • construction disputes
  • real estate disputes
  • corporate and commercial disputes
  • environmental liability
  • banking and finance disputes
  • insurance disputes
  • IT and technology disputes
  • data breaches and cyber security threats
  • competition law disputes
  • professional liability
  • distribution and agency disputes
  • retail and consumer disputes
  • product liability
  • media and sports law
  • investor-state arbitrations
  • enforcement of judgments and awards
  • interim measures.

Our service offering also covers advice in Corporate Crime & Investigations.

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
All cases

Our team

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
Robin Ollus
Tuomas Lehtinen

Robin Ollus & Tuomas Lehtinen

 Article published 5.9.2024 – Data & Technology Technology acquisitions can boost companies’ growth – or cause them to fail
Topi Lusenius
Anders Forss
Kim Parviainen

Topi Lusenius, Anders Forss & Kim Parviainen

 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
Anna Kuusniemi-Laine
Robin Ollus

Anna Kuusniemi-Laine & Robin Ollus

 Article published 25.3.2024 – Dispute Resolution First demand guarantees are excellent securities, but using them requires diligence
Tuomas Lehtinen
Jerker Pitkänen

Tuomas Lehtinen & Jerker Pitkänen
Insights