This judgment concerns the contractor's obligation to “initiate ordinary proceedings” within eight months of the takeover when he wants to pursue an amendment claim denied by the builder, cf. NS 8407 paragraph 35.2 (b). The same rule can be found in NS 8405 paragraph 26.3, letter b and correspondingly in NS 8415 and NS 8417.

We don't devote a lot of space to account for the background of the case. What can be established is that the eight-month time limit can in the first instance be interrupted by taking out a settlement complaint within the deadline. Normally, a settlement council's consideration of such claims will end with the conciliation board discontinuing the case because it does not have the competence to deal with such complex issues raised by change order claims.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not sufficient to file the settlement complaint, have the case adjourned and so need not do anything but take care that the claim is not barred after the ordinary limitation period of three years.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court clearly states that a settlement council case that is suspended must be actively followed up with a subpoena, cf. the condition in NS 8405 paragraph 35.2 (b) that “ordinary proceedings must be instituted”.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court states that the period of eight months in said provision is to be regarded as a limitation period. This means that the contractor must file a lawsuit (in the form of a subpoena) within one year counted from when the case was adjourned in the Conciliation Council. The basis for this is Section 18-3, second paragraph of the Disputes Act, which states the following:

“When the statute of limitations is interrupted by a settlement appeal, this effect ceases if the writ, or any settlement complaint, has not been submitted to the court within one year of the termination of the proceedings by the conciliation board”.

This judgment concerns the contractor's obligation to “initiate ordinary proceedings” within eight months of the takeover when he wants to pursue an amendment claim denied by the builder, cf. NS 8407 paragraph 35.2 (b). The same rule can be found in NS 8405 paragraph 26.3, letter b and correspondingly in NS 8415 and NS 8417.

We don't devote a lot of space to account for the background of the case. What can be established is that the eight-month time limit can in the first instance be interrupted by taking out a settlement complaint within the deadline. Normally, a settlement council's consideration of such claims will end with the conciliation board discontinuing the case because it does not have the competence to deal with such complex issues raised by change order claims.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not sufficient to file the settlement complaint, have the case adjourned and so need not do anything but take care that the claim is not barred after the ordinary limitation period of three years.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court clearly states that a settlement council case that is suspended must be actively followed up with a subpoena, cf. the condition in NS 8405 paragraph 35.2 (b) that “ordinary proceedings must be instituted”.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court states that the period of eight months in said provision is to be regarded as a limitation period. This means that the contractor must file a lawsuit (in the form of a subpoena) within one year counted from when the case was adjourned in the Conciliation Council. The basis for this is Section 18-3, second paragraph of the Disputes Act, which states the following:

“When the statute of limitations is interrupted by a settlement appeal, this effect ceases if the writ, or any settlement complaint, has not been submitted to the court within one year of the termination of the proceedings by the conciliation board”.

This judgment concerns the contractor's obligation to “initiate ordinary proceedings” within eight months of the takeover when he wants to pursue an amendment claim denied by the builder, cf. NS 8407 paragraph 35.2 (b). The same rule can be found in NS 8405 paragraph 26.3, letter b and correspondingly in NS 8415 and NS 8417.

We don't devote a lot of space to account for the background of the case. What can be established is that the eight-month time limit can in the first instance be interrupted by taking out a settlement complaint within the deadline. Normally, a settlement council's consideration of such claims will end with the conciliation board discontinuing the case because it does not have the competence to deal with such complex issues raised by change order claims.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not sufficient to file the settlement complaint, have the case adjourned and so need not do anything but take care that the claim is not barred after the ordinary limitation period of three years.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court clearly states that a settlement council case that is suspended must be actively followed up with a subpoena, cf. the condition in NS 8405 paragraph 35.2 (b) that “ordinary proceedings must be instituted”.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court states that the period of eight months in said provision is to be regarded as a limitation period. This means that the contractor must file a lawsuit (in the form of a subpoena) within one year counted from when the case was adjourned in the Conciliation Council. The basis for this is Section 18-3, second paragraph of the Disputes Act, which states the following:

“When the statute of limitations is interrupted by a settlement appeal, this effect ceases if the writ, or any settlement complaint, has not been submitted to the court within one year of the termination of the proceedings by the conciliation board”.

This judgment concerns the contractor's obligation to “initiate ordinary proceedings” within eight months of the takeover when he wants to pursue an amendment claim denied by the builder, cf. NS 8407 paragraph 35.2 (b). The same rule can be found in NS 8405 paragraph 26.3, letter b and correspondingly in NS 8415 and NS 8417.

We don't devote a lot of space to account for the background of the case. What can be established is that the eight-month time limit can in the first instance be interrupted by taking out a settlement complaint within the deadline. Normally, a settlement council's consideration of such claims will end with the conciliation board discontinuing the case because it does not have the competence to deal with such complex issues raised by change order claims.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not sufficient to file the settlement complaint, have the case adjourned and so need not do anything but take care that the claim is not barred after the ordinary limitation period of three years.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court clearly states that a settlement council case that is suspended must be actively followed up with a subpoena, cf. the condition in NS 8405 paragraph 35.2 (b) that “ordinary proceedings must be instituted”.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court states that the period of eight months in said provision is to be regarded as a limitation period. This means that the contractor must file a lawsuit (in the form of a subpoena) within one year counted from when the case was adjourned in the Conciliation Council. The basis for this is Section 18-3, second paragraph of the Disputes Act, which states the following:

“When the statute of limitations is interrupted by a settlement appeal, this effect ceases if the writ, or any settlement complaint, has not been submitted to the court within one year of the termination of the proceedings by the conciliation board”.

This judgment concerns the contractor's obligation to “initiate ordinary proceedings” within eight months of the takeover when he wants to pursue an amendment claim denied by the builder, cf. NS 8407 paragraph 35.2 (b). The same rule can be found in NS 8405 paragraph 26.3, letter b and correspondingly in NS 8415 and NS 8417.

We don't devote a lot of space to account for the background of the case. What can be established is that the eight-month time limit can in the first instance be interrupted by taking out a settlement complaint within the deadline. Normally, a settlement council's consideration of such claims will end with the conciliation board discontinuing the case because it does not have the competence to deal with such complex issues raised by change order claims.

In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is not sufficient to file the settlement complaint, have the case adjourned and so need not do anything but take care that the claim is not barred after the ordinary limitation period of three years.

In the judgment, the Supreme Court clearly states that a settlement council case that is suspended must be actively followed up with a subpoena, cf. the condition in NS 8405 paragraph 35.2 (b) that “ordinary proceedings must be instituted”.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court states that the period of eight months in said provision is to be regarded as a limitation period. This means that the contractor must file a lawsuit (in the form of a subpoena) within one year counted from when the case was adjourned in the Conciliation Council. The basis for this is Section 18-3, second paragraph of the Disputes Act, which states the following:

“When the statute of limitations is interrupted by a settlement appeal, this effect ceases if the writ, or any settlement complaint, has not been submitted to the court within one year of the termination of the proceedings by the conciliation board”.