A company sued the State, after which the parties entered into a settlement that meant that the state would pay a certain amount to the company. The company had engaged a lawyer as counsel in the dispute and issued him with an authorisation. Before the settlement agreement was signed, the State requested the company to issue a new authorisation for the representative. The company complied with the request. Unlike the previous authorisation, the new authorisation did not entitle the lawyer to receive payment on behalf of the company. The new authorisation was handed over to the State through the lawyer. The State then paid the settlement amount to the lawyer, who did not, however, pay the amount on to the company. The company claims that the payment to the lawyer was not made with exonerating effect.
The Supreme Court notes that the fact that a new authorisation was issued with a more limited competence for the lawyer does not mean that the first authorisation must be considered to have been revoked in the prescribed manner. Several authorisations with different permissions can apply in parallel. However, through the new authorisation, the company expressed the view that the lawyer's competence under the previous authorisation would no longer apply. The State, which had requested the new authorisation, should have understood this. The State could therefore not rely on the previous authorisation. This means that the payment of the settlement amount to the lawyer was not made with exonerating effect.
Case No: T 5880-23
Case name
"Two powers of attorney"
Contact
Press contact
Telephone
08-561 666 30
Email
HDO-Presskontakt@dom.se