The position and powers of an arbitrator bear strong resemblance in many aspects, to those of a judge serving in an ordinary court of law. But the arbitral proceedings are also strongly characterised by elements which are not typically present in the public administration of justice. The key difference between the proceedings is that, at its most common, the arbitration is based on, and governed by, a contract between the disputing parties.
Under Finnish law, a judge of a court can rarely be held liable for his or her judgment, even where it has been later quashed or set aside due to erroneous application of law or even incapacity. Due to the mix of elements from both public and private legal regimes, it has not been clear as to how and on what grounds the liability of an arbitrator, if any, should be assessed. The Supreme Court of Finland gave welcome guidance on all of these issues of liability in its judgment of 31 January, 2005, as explained in more detail below.
