Notice: We are currently performing maintenance to improve the italaw platform. The site remains fully accessible. Thank you for your patience.

italaw180988 - Littop v. Ukraine, Decision of the Swedish Supreme Court on Permission for Appeal (Swedish), November 21, 2025.pdf

21 Nov 2025
Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited and Bordo Management Limited v. Ukraine, SCC Case No. V 2015/092
Decision of the Swedish Supreme Court on Permission for Appeal (Swedish)
Document Details:
LISTED PARTICIPANTS
Decision of the Swedish Supreme Court on Permission for Appeal (Swedish)
Participants listed are for this document only and may not include all participants involved in the entire case. Always consult the original documents.
Claimant appointee
Respondent appointee
Tribunal/Panel chair
Arbitrator(s)
Sole Arbitrator
ICSID Annulment Committee president
ICSID Annulment Committee members
WTO Appellate Body members
WTO Appellate Body chair
Claimant's law firm
Respondent's law firm
Other counsel
Claimant's expert
Claimant's expert firm
Respondent's expert
Respondent's expert firm
Claimant's witness
Respondent's witness
Other witnesses
Tribunal secretary
Tribunal assistant
Third-party funder
Country
Print reporter
Document Summary
Decision of the Swedish Supreme Court on Permission for Appeal (Swedish)
This summary note is machine-generated. Always consult the original materials.

This document is a decision issued by the Supreme Court of Sweden (Högsta domstolen) concerning an application for leave to appeal a judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal. The underlying matter was an action to set aside an arbitral award, initiated by Littop Enterprises Limited, Bridgemont Ventures Limited, and Bordo Management Limited against Ukraine, pursuant to Section 36 of the Swedish Arbitration Act.

The Supreme Court considered whether to grant leave to appeal the lower court's decision. Under Swedish law, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in such matters is granted only if the case is of importance for the guidance of the application of law (i.e., has precedential value) or if there are exceptional reasons for a review.

After examining the case materials, the Supreme Court found no grounds to grant leave to appeal. The Court concluded that neither the requirement of precedential value nor the existence of exceptional circumstances had been met. Consequently, the Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal, thereby rendering the judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal final and conclusive.