Legal Tug-of-War: Rodamco Projekt AB vs. Peab Sverige AB Over Mall of Scandinavia Dispute
June 4, 2025, 8:13 pm
In the world of construction, disputes can be as common as bricks and mortar. The ongoing saga between Rodamco Projekt AB (RPAB) and Peab Sverige AB (Peab) is a prime example. This legal battle has escalated into a complex arbitration case, revealing the intricacies of contract law and the stakes involved in large-scale projects.
The roots of this conflict stretch back to 2011 when RPAB and Peab entered a turnkey contract for the construction of the Mall of Scandinavia. The deal was sealed with a fixed price of SEK 3.6 billion. At the time, both parties meticulously assessed the risks and financial exposures. They were ready to build a landmark, but as it often happens in construction, the road was anything but smooth.
Fast forward to 2025, and the situation has turned into a legal quagmire. RPAB has filed for arbitration, seeking liquidated damages amounting to SEK 1.1 billion. This figure includes the original claim of SEK 617 million, plus interest that has been accruing since 2016. The stakes are high, and the implications could ripple through the construction industry in Sweden.
The catalyst for this latest development was a ruling from the Svea Court of Appeal on May 28, 2025. The court partially annulled an arbitration award from 2023, citing procedural failings. This ruling has opened the door for RPAB to pursue its claims for liquidated damages. It’s a glimmer of hope for RPAB, which has been seeking a fair resolution to the outstanding balances with Peab.
However, the court's decision was a double-edged sword. While it allowed RPAB to continue its pursuit, it also upheld parts of the previous arbitration award that RPAB found unsatisfactory. This has left RPAB feeling both vindicated and frustrated. The company has been vocal about its disappointment regarding the court's failure to recognize additional procedural failings in the arbitration decision.
The crux of the dispute lies in the aftermath of the construction project. Despite RPAB paying Peab the agreed amount, Peab later demanded an additional SEK 2.1 billion. This demand came after Peab's project management team was replaced due to corruption issues that surfaced in 2013. The delays that followed were significant, with the final inspection occurring 407 days after the contracted opening date. The Mall of Scandinavia eventually opened its doors in November 2015, but the relationship between the two companies had soured.
In 2017, Peab initiated arbitration, claiming compensation for costs that exceeded its internal budget. This claim was based on Peab's own calculations, lacking substantial evidence. RPAB, on the other hand, has maintained that the terms of their contract were clear and that Peab's demands were unfounded. The arbitration process has been fraught with complications, leading to a split decision among the three arbitrators involved. Only two supported the award, while the dissenting arbitrator pointed out serious errors and contradictions in the decision.
The implications of this case extend beyond the two companies involved. The outcome could set a precedent for fixed-price contracts in Sweden. If Peab's claims are upheld, it may encourage other contractors to pursue similar compensation claims, potentially destabilizing the construction landscape. The uncertainty surrounding fixed-price contracts could lead to increased caution among developers and contractors alike.
As RPAB navigates this legal labyrinth, it remains committed to finding an amicable solution. The company has expressed its determination to pursue fair compensation for the delays and damages incurred during the project. The partial annulment of the arbitration award has provided a renewed sense of purpose for RPAB, but the road ahead is still fraught with challenges.
In the world of construction, timing is everything. Delays can lead to financial losses, and disputes can drag on for years. The Mall of Scandinavia case is a stark reminder of the complexities involved in large-scale projects. It highlights the importance of clear communication, thorough documentation, and the need for robust management practices.
As the legal proceedings continue, both RPAB and Peab are left to grapple with the consequences of their decisions. The construction industry is watching closely, as the outcome of this dispute could reshape the landscape of contractual agreements in Sweden.
In the end, this case is more than just a legal battle; it’s a lesson in the importance of accountability and transparency in construction. As RPAB and Peab face off in arbitration, the stakes are high, and the future of fixed-price contracts hangs in the balance. The Mall of Scandinavia may stand tall, but the shadows of this dispute loom large.
The roots of this conflict stretch back to 2011 when RPAB and Peab entered a turnkey contract for the construction of the Mall of Scandinavia. The deal was sealed with a fixed price of SEK 3.6 billion. At the time, both parties meticulously assessed the risks and financial exposures. They were ready to build a landmark, but as it often happens in construction, the road was anything but smooth.
Fast forward to 2025, and the situation has turned into a legal quagmire. RPAB has filed for arbitration, seeking liquidated damages amounting to SEK 1.1 billion. This figure includes the original claim of SEK 617 million, plus interest that has been accruing since 2016. The stakes are high, and the implications could ripple through the construction industry in Sweden.
The catalyst for this latest development was a ruling from the Svea Court of Appeal on May 28, 2025. The court partially annulled an arbitration award from 2023, citing procedural failings. This ruling has opened the door for RPAB to pursue its claims for liquidated damages. It’s a glimmer of hope for RPAB, which has been seeking a fair resolution to the outstanding balances with Peab.
However, the court's decision was a double-edged sword. While it allowed RPAB to continue its pursuit, it also upheld parts of the previous arbitration award that RPAB found unsatisfactory. This has left RPAB feeling both vindicated and frustrated. The company has been vocal about its disappointment regarding the court's failure to recognize additional procedural failings in the arbitration decision.
The crux of the dispute lies in the aftermath of the construction project. Despite RPAB paying Peab the agreed amount, Peab later demanded an additional SEK 2.1 billion. This demand came after Peab's project management team was replaced due to corruption issues that surfaced in 2013. The delays that followed were significant, with the final inspection occurring 407 days after the contracted opening date. The Mall of Scandinavia eventually opened its doors in November 2015, but the relationship between the two companies had soured.
In 2017, Peab initiated arbitration, claiming compensation for costs that exceeded its internal budget. This claim was based on Peab's own calculations, lacking substantial evidence. RPAB, on the other hand, has maintained that the terms of their contract were clear and that Peab's demands were unfounded. The arbitration process has been fraught with complications, leading to a split decision among the three arbitrators involved. Only two supported the award, while the dissenting arbitrator pointed out serious errors and contradictions in the decision.
The implications of this case extend beyond the two companies involved. The outcome could set a precedent for fixed-price contracts in Sweden. If Peab's claims are upheld, it may encourage other contractors to pursue similar compensation claims, potentially destabilizing the construction landscape. The uncertainty surrounding fixed-price contracts could lead to increased caution among developers and contractors alike.
As RPAB navigates this legal labyrinth, it remains committed to finding an amicable solution. The company has expressed its determination to pursue fair compensation for the delays and damages incurred during the project. The partial annulment of the arbitration award has provided a renewed sense of purpose for RPAB, but the road ahead is still fraught with challenges.
In the world of construction, timing is everything. Delays can lead to financial losses, and disputes can drag on for years. The Mall of Scandinavia case is a stark reminder of the complexities involved in large-scale projects. It highlights the importance of clear communication, thorough documentation, and the need for robust management practices.
As the legal proceedings continue, both RPAB and Peab are left to grapple with the consequences of their decisions. The construction industry is watching closely, as the outcome of this dispute could reshape the landscape of contractual agreements in Sweden.
In the end, this case is more than just a legal battle; it’s a lesson in the importance of accountability and transparency in construction. As RPAB and Peab face off in arbitration, the stakes are high, and the future of fixed-price contracts hangs in the balance. The Mall of Scandinavia may stand tall, but the shadows of this dispute loom large.