International Arbitration 2026 Comparisons

Solving legal disputes before a tribunal outside the state-established court system has been accepted and recognised in Denmark for centuries. However, the use of arbitration as a method for dispute resolution has grown in popularity since the enactment of the first comprehensive act regulating arbitration in 1972. The possibility of confidentiality, the parties’ ability to influence the appointment of arbitrators, the expediency of proceedings, the finality of the arbitration award, the expertise of the arbitrators and global enforcement opportunities are among the main factors driving this increased popularity, particularly in commercial disputes.

International arbitration in Denmark is most prevalent in disputes between professional parties, where one party is domiciled in Denmark and the other parties are from other countries. However, since 2022, there has been an increase in purely international cases with no Danish parties referred to arbitration under Danish law, pursuant to the rules of both the Danish Institute of Arbitration (DIA) and the Nordic Offshore and Maritime Arbitration Association (NOMA).

An arbitration agreement is also found in many of the agreed documents most commonly used in Denmark. For example, most agreements regarding construction projects pertain to arbitration, as these agreements often refer to agreed documents (the general conditions for consulting services for building and construction works from 2018, known as ABR 18 or general conditions for building and construction works and supplies from 2018, known as AB 18), where arbitration is the default dispute resolution option.

Statistics on the use of arbitration in general are not available in Denmark; however, the DIA posts statistics on cases filed with it. The latest statistics published by the DIA for 2025 show that the most dominant sectors are industry, telecommunications and information technology, commerce, building and construction, finance and insurance, transport and energy, while the remaining cases are spread across a variety of industries.

Divided by subject matter, the statistics indicate that the largest categories are shareholders’ agreements, M&A, purchase agreements, co-operation agreements and service agreements. Approximately one-fourth of the cases commenced at the DIA in 2025 are characterised as international arbitration. Naturally, international arbitration cases would be most common in industries with prevalent cross-border activities, engagements, etc.

The 2025 statistics show that the total caseload decreased slightly from 2024 to 2025 – from 142 cases in total in 2024 to 134 in 2025 – while international arbitration cases rose from 30 to 37 – reaching the highest level of international arbitration cases since 2021. This suggests a strengthening of the DIA’s international arbitration activity.

The DIA has existed as an institution for arbitration since 1894. The DIA in its current form was created as a non-profit, self-governing institution in 1981. Unlike sector-specific institutions, the DIA adjudicates cases across a wide range of sectors. The DIA has prepared the DIA Rules for Arbitration Procedures (the “DIA Rules”), with the latest version being in force as of 13 April 2021.

The Danish Building and Construction Arbitration Board (the “Arbitration Board”) oversees the vast majority of arbitral disputes in the construction sector. Along with its predecessors, AB 18 is the most commonly used document in agreements concerning the building and construction sector. AB 18 contains an arbitration clause that refers to the Arbitration Board as the dispute resolution institute. While dispute resolution before the Arbitration Board is categorised as arbitration under the Danish Arbitration Act of 2005 (the DAA) and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), the proceedings deviate from international arbitration in relation to the opportunity and custom of appointing technical arbitrators instead of legal arbitrators. Arbitrators with a legal background are, as a rule, appointed by a committee comprising judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, while arbitrators with a professional background in the field of conflict are proposed by the Arbitration Board’s Secretariat.

Institutions of international character, such as the International Chamber of Commerce, are also occasionally used by Danish parties.

Finally, since 2022, there has been an increase in cases referred to arbitration under NOMA, an association established in 2017 that facilitates international arbitrations in the Nordic countries within the maritime and offshore industry.

No specific courts are designated to hear disputes relating to international or domestic arbitrations. In the Danish civil court system, matters pertaining to international arbitrations and/or domestic arbitrations of commercial disputes would proceed before the ordinary national courts.

The central statute governing arbitral proceedings is the DAA. The DAA applies when the arbitration is seated in Denmark and it does not differentiate between national arbitration (ie, arbitration without international affiliation) and international arbitration (ie, arbitration with international affiliation); see Section 1(1) of the DAA. Some provisions of the DAA also apply when the place of arbitration is a foreign country or when it has not yet been determined (see Section 1(2) of the DAA). The DAA largely reflects the 1985 version of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

One deviation of the DAA from the Model Law is the scope of application. The DAA also applies in cases of national arbitration and cases of non-commercial arbitration.

The DAA contains several provisions that refer to the national courts. Proceedings at the national courts are regulated by the Administration of Justice Act of 1916 (the AJA). The proceedings will therefore also be subject to this Act if the national courts are engaged.

If institutional arbitration is chosen, the arbitral proceedings will be subject to the rules in force at that particular institution. An example of this is the DIA Rules, which govern proceedings at the DIA. If the proceedings are filed with the DIA, the arbitration is governed by the DIA Rules and, where the rules are silent on a specific point, by any other rules of the parties – or, failing that, by rules decided by the tribunal (see Article 28(2) of the DIA Rules).

No recent changes have been made to the DAA. The last major change to regulatory arbitration rules was in 2021, when the DIA Rules were revised. The new DIA Rules entered into force on 13 April 2021 and replaced the 2013 DIA Rules. The new Rules were formulated in line with the standards of Danish and international arbitration practice.

Neither the DAA nor Danish contract law generally stipulates that an arbitration agreement must meet certain formal requirements. There are, therefore, no formal legal requirements for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable. An oral agreement may also suffice, although it may be difficult to prove and thereby uphold. An arbitration agreement based on the parties’ unequivocal behaviour, such as failure to object throughout the proceedings, can also be considered binding for the parties.

However, under Section 7 of the DAA, arbitration agreements regarding disputes that have not yet arisen must relate to a specific, concretised legal relationship.

An arbitration clause in a consumer contract is not binding on the consumer when the agreement is concluded prior to the dispute. Thus, arbitration clauses in a consumer contract are not, per se, invalid. However, an arbitration agreement concluded before the dispute arose is not binding on the consumer under Section 7(2) of the DAA. A consumer has waived the right to plead that the arbitration agreement is non-binding only if they proceed with the arbitration after being informed that it is non-binding.

Under Section 6 of the DAA, it is a principal rule that arbitration may be agreed for disputes relating to subject matter over which the parties have an unrestricted right to dispose. For some matters, specific statutory provisions establish that these cannot be subject to arbitral agreements – eg, disputes regarding a residential lease cannot be subject to an arbitration agreement.

Also, as a general rule, fields of law traditionally concerned with public policy, such as family law and criminal law, the grant of patents and other IP rights and the grant of citizenship, are jurisdiction-exclusive to the national courts. Thus, disputes pertaining to matters of law protecting interests of public policy are generally non-arbitrable. In these cases, the public interest outweighs the parties’ contractual autonomy. It is possible for public authorities to enter into arbitration agreements when the authority does not act in its capacity as a public authority but, for example, enters into contracts regarding the construction of a building.

A list of non-arbitrable subject matters is not set out in the DAA. The question of arbitrability is determined on a case-by-case basis by the arbitral tribunal. Disputes pertaining to public law are not, per se, non-arbitrable. The approach to be applied therefore largely depends on the specific circumstances of the case and the interests of that particular legal area.

Considerations that, in many other countries, have led to the requirement that arbitration agreements be in writing have traditionally been addressed in Danish law by the courts imposing relatively strict requirements for the adoption of an arbitration agreement. The courts have traditionally adopted a restrictive approach to determining which disputes are covered by an arbitration agreement. However, there is some debate as to whether this traditional approach is still being practised by the national courts. Regardless, the courts’ assessment and interpretation of an arbitration agreement will largely depend on the specific circumstances of the case (namely the wording and context of the agreement).

When a valid arbitration agreement is in force, national courts are confined to the specific issues explicitly mentioned in the DAA; see Section 4 of the DAA. These issues include assisting in appointing arbitrator(s) (Section 11(3)), securing and obtaining evidence (Section 27), setting aside the award (Section 37) and refusing recognition or enforcement of the award (Section 39).

Under Section 8(1) of the DAA, the courts’ jurisdiction is limited if a matter is submitted before the Danish national courts but subject to a valid arbitration agreement (see 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention). The case must, at a party’s request, be dismissed by the court, unless the arbitration agreement is invalid or the arbitration cannot be completed for other reasons.

If the subject matter is arbitrable and the arbitration agreement otherwise conforms with Danish contract law, the national courts will enforce the agreement.

According to the doctrine of separability set out in Section 16(1) of the DAA, examination of the validity of an arbitration clause is to be done separately and detached from a review of the main agreement. The arbitral tribunal may therefore uphold the arbitration agreement’s validity even if it finds the main agreement in which the arbitration agreement is contained invalid.

The DAA does not contain provisions that restrict the parties in selecting arbitrators. Unless the parties’ agreement (or any institutional rules) provides otherwise, the parties are free to select whoever they find suitable as an arbitrator. Although there are no direct restrictions for the parties when selecting arbitrators, the individual to be appointed as arbitrator must still fulfil the general requirements of impartiality and independence.

The International Bar Association (IBA) Rules of Ethics for International Arbitrators, adopted in 1987, reflect internationally accepted guidelines developed by lawyers from all continents. These guidelines stipulate that international arbitrators should be:

• impartial;
• independent;
• competent;
• diligent; and
• discreet.

The DIA Rules contain specific rules on the appointment of arbitrators, including rules on impartiality, disclosure obligations regarding previous appointments by the parties or their legal advisers and the country of domicile (in international arbitration cases). Article 18(2) of the DIA Rules stipulates that the president of the tribunal or a sole arbitrator, must hold a law degree. All appointments of arbitrators are also subject to confirmation by the Chair’s Committee of the DIA under Article 19(1) of the DIA Rules.

The DAA contains default procedures governing the selection process if the arbitral tribunal cannot be established in accordance with the procedure set out in the parties’ agreement or if the parties have not agreed on this issue. Under Section 11(2) of the DAA, if the arbitration agreement does not set out the procedure for constituting the arbitral tribunal, the tribunal will consist of three arbitrators. Each party will appoint one arbitrator within 30 days of the other party’s request. The two arbitrators appointed will engage the third arbitrator, who will act as president of the tribunal.

If the arbitral proceedings are filed with the DIA, the dispute will be decided by a sole arbitrator if the parties have not agreed upon the number of arbitrators under Article 18(1) of the DIA Rules. However, in special circumstances, a panel of three arbitrators may be convened.

In the case of multi-party arbitrations, there is no default procedure that applies unless otherwise agreed.

The selection of arbitrators is subject to the parties’ agreement and the courts will not automatically intervene. However, the courts can become involved at the request of a party under Section 11(3) of the DAA.

If the arbitral tribunal cannot be successfully constituted, a party may request that the courts appoint the arbitrator. Section 11(3) of the DAA applies if the arbitral tribunal cannot be constituted in line with the procedure agreed by the parties or, in the absence of such agreement, in line with the default rules mentioned in 4.2 Default Procedures.

In appointing an arbitrator, the courts will have regard to any qualifications required of the arbitrator under the parties’ agreement. The courts must also ensure that the appointed arbitrator is impartial and independent of the parties. This provision establishing the constitutive competence of the national courts cannot be derogated from by agreement between the parties under Section 2(2) of the DAA.

Under Section 13(1) of the DAA, the procedure for challenging an arbitrator is to be decided freely by the parties. The DIA Rules contain provisions establishing that a challenge of a selected arbitrator is to be decided by the DIA.

If the parties’ agreement does not regulate the procedure for challenging an arbitrator, Section 13(2) of the DAA applies by default. According to this provision, a party that intends to challenge an arbitrator must send a written statement of the reasons for the challenge to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days of becoming aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal and of the circumstances on which the challenge is based.

The grounds for a challenge can be that the arbitrator is not impartial or independent or does not possess the qualifications or characteristics specified in the parties’ agreement. The arbitral tribunal will decide on the challenge, unless the arbitrator voluntarily resigns from the position or the other party agrees with the challenge. If the arbitral tribunal rules that the challenge is unfounded, the challenging party may, within 30 days, request that the national courts decide on the challenge under Section 13(3) of the DAA.

Filing a challenge against an arbitrator will extend the overall timeframe of the proceedings in most cases, as such challenges often suspend the proceedings until the challenge is settled.

If the arbitral proceedings are filed with the DIA, a challenge to the arbitrators must be submitted to the secretariat of the DIA within 15 days of becoming aware of the appointment and the circumstances on which the challenge is based under Article 21(1) of the DIA Rules. The Chair’s Committee of the DIA decides on the challenge under Article 21(3) of the DIA Rules.

Following Section 12 of the DAA, arbitrators must be impartial and independent. An individual approached to be appointed as an arbitrator, as well as acting arbitrators, must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence. This includes personal or economic relations with either party or previous appointments by either of the parties.

Taking inspiration from Sections 60 and 61 of the AJA, which concern the disqualification of judges at the national courts, the approach is applied on a case-by-case basis. For international arbitration in particular, the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest have been important in determining the requirements of impartiality and independence.

For proceedings filed at the DIA, Article 20 of the DIA Rules provides that any individual appointed as an arbitrator must be available, impartial and independent. Similar to the DAA, the individual must disclose any matters that may give rise to legitimate doubts about their accessibility, impartiality or independence.

For proceedings carried out by the Arbitration Board, arbitrators must disclose any matters that may cast doubt over their impartiality or independence under Section 6(3) of the Arbitration Board’s Rules on arbitration.

In the first instance, the arbitral tribunal will rule on its own competence. The arbitral tribunal will, in particular, consider whether a binding arbitration agreement covering the dispute is in place between the parties. It is also a prerequisite for the arbitral tribunal’s competence that the subject matter of the dispute is arbitrable. This principle of competence-competence follows from Section 16(1) of the DAA or Article 25(1) of the DIA Rules (see 3.4 Validity).

If the action addressing issues of jurisdiction is filed with the national court before arbitration is commenced and the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement, the courts can only assess whether the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed. This limitation for the courts follows from Section 8(1) of the DAA. If the action is brought before a national court after the commencement of arbitral proceedings, the court is further limited to ruling on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal only as to whether the subject matter of the dispute is capable of settlement by arbitration under Section 8(1) of the DAA.

The national courts can also become involved when the arbitral tribunal has ruled on its own jurisdiction in a decision separate from the final award. If the arbitral tribunal preliminarily rules that it has jurisdiction, any party may, within 30 days after having received notice of that ruling, request that the national courts review the decision of the arbitral tribunal upholding its own jurisdiction under Section 16(3) of the DAA.

Ultimately, the national courts can invalidate an arbitral award containing decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, as this is one of the explicit grounds on which an award may be set aside under Section 37(2)(i)(c) of the DAA.

Under Section 8(2) of the DAA, if an action is brought at the court after the commencement of the arbitral proceedings, the court can rule on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal only in respect of whether the subject matter of the dispute is arbitrable.

Under Section 16(2) of the DAA, it is the principal rule that a submission regarding the arbitral tribunal not having jurisdiction must be submitted no later than the submission of the statement of defence. A submission that the arbitral tribunal is exceeding the scope of its authority will be submitted as soon as possible after the matter alleged to be beyond the scope of its authority is raised during the arbitral proceedings. Similarly, it also follows from Article 25(2) of the DIA Rules that objections to the jurisdiction of the tribunal must be raised no later than the statement of defence.

A submission concerning the arbitral tribunal not having jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the enforcement process of the arbitral award unless the subject matter of arbitration was non-arbitrable in the first place, as set out in Section 6 of the DAA under Section 16(4) of the DAA.

As mentioned in 3.3 National Courts’ Approach, the DAA includes limitations as to the national courts’ availability to review disputes subject to a (valid) arbitration agreement under Section 8(1) of the DAA. The standard of judicial review for jurisdiction to be employed is not specified in the statutory provisions of Danish law. There is no conclusive case law on the standard to be applied. Therefore, a case-by-case assessment has to be carried out to take the specific circumstances of the case into account.

The Danish courts have traditionally been reluctant to set aside decisions from an arbitral tribunal. A national court will most likely be reluctant to set aside a decision from the tribunal ruling on its own jurisdiction.

As mentioned in 3.3 National Courts’ Approach, national courts must dismiss the case if a dispute covered by an arbitration agreement is filed with them and impose costs on the losing party. Naturally, this does not apply if an arbitration agreement is found to be:

• null and void;
• inoperable; or
• incapable of being performed.

As the parties can agree to enter into an arbitration agreement, they can also agree to waive the agreement and proceed in national courts or through other means of dispute resolution. If a dispute is filed with the national courts, the national court will generally not raise the question of breach when the parties do not object to the court’s jurisdiction, regardless of whether the dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement.

The arbitral tribunal is generally not competent to assume jurisdiction over third parties that have not signed or entered into the arbitration agreement. However, third parties may sometimes be deemed to be parties bound by the arbitration agreement, such as in cases of universal succession (see 13.5 Binding of Third Parties).

It has been debated whether this principal rule – ie, that only signatories of the agreement are bound by it – is modified by a Danish Supreme Court decision issued in 2014. In this case (U 2014.2042 H), the court ruled that the claim between two parties with no direct contractual relationship (and therefore no arbitration agreement between them) was to be resolved through arbitration, as each party’s agreement contained an arbitration clause permitting this interpretation. The agreements at each link contained references to the same agreed document and, therefore, to the same arbitration clause.

In relation to disputes governed by the Arbitration Board, Section 69(7) of AB 18 provides that when AB 18 (or its predecessor, AB 92) applies to the relationship between the employer and several parties (contractors, suppliers), the arbitration agreement will apply to the interrelationship between the parties.

If a party requests it, the arbitral tribunal can order any party to take such interim measures of protection as the arbitral tribunal deems necessary in respect of the circumstances of the dispute under Section 17 of the DAA. However, if a party does not comply with the order from the arbitral tribunal, there is no legal basis providing for the enforceability of the interim measures of protection ordered by the tribunal. To ensure enforceability, the party must engage the national courts (see 6.2 Role of Courts).

In the majority of arbitration cases in Denmark, the types of interim relief the tribunal considers are typically injunctions and actions preserving assets and evidence, corresponding to those employed by the national courts (ie, the types found in the AJA).

In arbitral proceedings with the DIA, the tribunal may, upon a party’s request order another party to take such interim measures as it considers necessary under Article 36 of the DIA Rules.

Under Section 9 of the DAA, an arbitration agreement does not prejudice a party from petitioning the national courts for preliminary or interim measures, in line with the provisions found in the AJA.

The courts may order an injunction if the following circumstances are shown to be sufficiently probable or proven by clear and convincing evidence:

• that the party holds the right for which protection by way of an injunction is sought;
• that the conduct of the opposing party requires the granting of the injunction; and
• that the ability of the party to enforce its right will be lost if the party has to await a full trial.

The courts can also deny the granting of an injunction if the damage or inconvenience caused to the counterparty is manifestly disproportionate to the interests supporting the injunction.

Section 9 applies not only when the seat of arbitration is in Denmark, but also when the place of arbitration is in a foreign country or when the place of arbitration has not yet been determined, under Section 1(2) of the DAA. Where the parties cannot agree that Section 9 is not applicable, see Section 2(1) of the DAA.

Types of Relief

Subject to the provisions in the AJA, the types of reliefs that the national courts can grant include injunctions and actions preserving assets and evidence – for instance, in the case of infringement of IP rights.

Danish statutory law does not contain provisions specifically relating to the use of emergency arbitrators. However, as no statutory provisions preclude the use of emergency arbitrators, the parties may, in their arbitration agreement, explicitly allow their use.

Article 48 of the DIA Rules allows the appointment of an emergency arbitrator when the taking of evidence or the imposition of interim measures cannot await the confirmation of the “permanent” arbitrator(s). These procedures are further regulated in Appendix 3 of the DIA Rules.

Under Section 36(1) of the DAA, an arbitral tribunal may order the parties to provide security for the tribunal’s fees and expenses. In most cases, the security will be ordered by the tribunal or the institution at which the arbitration is being conducted. The arbitral tribunal has the power to determine the nature and extent of the security. Unless agreed otherwise, the arbitral tribunal cannot order security for a party’s costs to the other party. If the parties have agreed to use the DIA Rules, for example, the arbitral tribunal can order a party upon request to provide security for the other party’s costs under Article 12(3) of the DIA Rules.

Specifically in relation to instances where the arbitral tribunal requires a party to take interim measures (see 6.1 Types of Relief), it further follows from Section 17 of the DAA that the arbitral tribunal can require any party to provide appropriate security in connection with the measures. The arbitral tribunal may determine that the security is a condition for the requested interim measure.

In proceedings before national courts brought by a plaintiff not domiciled in the EU/European Economic Area, the courts may order a party to provide security for costs. However, security cannot be ordered by the courts when the plaintiff is domiciled in a country where the security will not be ordered for plaintiffs from Denmark.

Specifically, in procedures for interim measures before national courts, the court may provide interim relief conditional on the party establishing security for any detriment or disadvantage inflicted on the opposing party.

Chapter 5 (Sections 18–27) of the DAA contains provisions governing the procedure of arbitration. Except for those specified in 7.2 Procedural Steps, the provisions in this chapter apply by default if the parties have not agreed otherwise. In the absence of agreement between the parties, it follows from Section 19(2) that the arbitral tribunal is vested with wide discretion to conduct the proceedings in the manner it considers appropriate.

Section 20 of the DAA relates to the place of arbitration. If the parties’ agreement does not determine the place, the arbitral tribunal decides the place having regard to the circumstances of the case.

If it follows from the arbitration agreement that arbitral proceedings are to be filed at a specific institution, the rules of the institution will govern the procedure of the arbitration. For example, if the proceedings are filed with the DIA, the place of arbitration is Copenhagen, unless otherwise agreed between the parties under Article 27 of the DIA Rules.

Commencing Arbitration

If the parties have not agreed otherwise, Section 21 of the DAA provides that arbitration commences when the respondent receives a written request for arbitration.

If the proceedings are filed with the DIA, it follows from Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the DIA Rules that a statement of claim must be submitted to the DIA and the date on which the DIA receives this statement of claim is the date on which the arbitration case is considered commenced. The statement of claim will be submitted to the DIA in the language the parties have agreed and in the absence of an agreement or if there is otherwise disagreement between the parties regarding the language, the statement of claim will be submitted in the language that is used in the parties’ arbitration agreement under Article 5 of the DIA Rules.

Language

If the parties do not agree on the language of the arbitration, it is to be decided by the arbitral tribunal under Section 22 of the DAA.

Filing of Statement of Claim/Defence

Section 23 of the DAA relates to the filing of a statement of claim and statement of defence. In contrast, Section 25 of the DAA concerns instances where the claimant or defendant (without showing sufficient cause) fails to submit a statement of claim/defence, does not attend hearings or fails to produce documentary evidence.

Section 24 of the DAA addresses oral hearings. If requested by a party, the tribunal must hold these hearings. Otherwise, the proceedings may be conducted in writing.

With the exception of Sections 18 and 27, the provisions in Chapter 5 of the DAA only apply when the parties have not agreed otherwise. See also 7.1 Governing Rules.

Section 18 of the DAA sets out the basic principles of equal treatment of the parties and the equal right for each party to fully present its case. The arbitrators must respect these principles.

Under Section 27(1) of the DAA, which the parties cannot derogate from, the arbitral tribunal or a party with the approval of the arbitral tribunal, may request the assistance of the national courts in taking evidence, in line with the provisions of the AJA. This can, inter alia, be relevant if a witness is unwilling to give testimony before the arbitral tribunal (see 8.3 Powers of Compulsion). Section 27(2) of the DAA allows the arbitral tribunal to request that the national courts refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) if a ruling from the CJEU is necessary for the arbitral tribunal to issue the award.

Under Section 19 of the DAA, the arbitrators have wide discretion to conduct the proceedings in the way they see fit. According to Section 19(2) of the DAA, it is explicitly stated that the power vested in the arbitral tribunal includes the power to determine the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of any evidence.

It follows from Section 18 of the DAA that it is the duty of the arbitrators to ensure equal treatment of the parties, as well as to ensure that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. In line with Section 12, arbitrators must also be impartial and independent. Both prospective and acting arbitrators are under a duty to remain impartial and independent of the parties. They must disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence.

In arbitral proceedings, there are no statutory provisions outlining specific qualifications or other requirements for legal representatives. A party can decide not to assume legal counsel at all (although this is not recommended in most cases).

However, there are legal requirements for representatives acting on behalf of their clients before the regular courts in Denmark. As a rule, a legal representative must be a Danish Bar-qualified lawyer (or an EU lawyer admitted to practice in Denmark) in order to appear before the national courts.

While the parties can, to a large extent, customise the proceedings as they wish, arbitration in Denmark is often conducted uniformly. The principal rule is that the parties themselves are responsible for collecting and submitting the evidence they consider relevant and necessary for the case. If relevant, the parties can also agree on the factual circumstances to be assumed by the arbitral tribunal in considering its award.

In terms of collecting evidence, a party can request disclosure of documents from the other party. If the disclosure order by the arbitral tribunal is not complied with, the tribunal can choose to apply adverse inference to the disadvantage of the non-complying party. The courts cannot force disclosure upon a party to the case. However, it is possible to request assistance from the courts to force disclosure upon a third party.

The use of written witness statements in arbitration has become widespread, particularly in international arbitration, influenced by the procedures used in such cases, including the IBA rules. This is particularly applicable to cases before the DIA. The parties also commonly submit separate reports from experts. The arbitral tribunal can also initiate a process involving a neutral expert not directly engaged by either party, much like the process usually followed by national courts when obtaining an expert appraisal; see, for example, Article 35 of the DIA Rules.

Section 19(2) of the DAA establishes the arbitral tribunal’s discretion when assessing and weighing the evidence presented to it. The arbitral tribunal can, therefore, inter alia, decide which documents or other pieces of evidence are to be included and which are to be excluded as irrelevant. However, this principle can be derogated from by agreement between the parties.

Under Danish law, arbitrators are not vested with powers of compulsion to order the production of documents or require the attendance of witnesses.

The provisions found in the AJA stating the duty to give evidence and the powers of compulsion if a witness refuses to testify do not apply to an arbitral tribunal. False testimony given by a witness (or a party) under arbitration is also not punishable under Section 158 of the Criminal Code, but instead as lawsuit fraud. If coercive powers are necessary to make a witness testify or if it is found desirable that the testimony is subject to criminal liability, the arbitral tribunal can, under Section 27 of the DAA, request the national courts’ assistance in taking evidence. While it is the principal rule that everyone has a duty to testify before national courts, this rule has exceptions. For example, individuals closely related to a party do not have this duty.

Additionally, the arbitral tribunal can order any party or third party to produce certain documents that are (or are believed to be) under its disposal. However, the arbitral tribunal does not have any coercive powers in the event of non-compliance. In these cases, the arbitral tribunal can refer to the national courts and request assistance in securing the evidence. In line with the provisions of the AJA, national courts have coercive powers only if the unwilling subject is a third party.

The prevailing view is that there are no general rules in Danish law that confer confidentiality on arbitral proceedings or materials from arbitral proceedings. Following this view, the parties are not necessarily obliged to maintain confidentiality regarding the case. In practice, hearings are rarely held with free public access. The parties are also free to enter into an agreement according to which they undertake a duty of confidentiality. The extent of the confidentiality will then depend on the terms of the parties’ agreement, but such agreements are common.

If the arbitral proceedings are filed with the DIA, under Article 28(4) of the DIA Rules, the arbitral tribunal can (upon a party’s request) decide that the proceedings be kept confidential. The arbitral tribunal can also take measures to protect trade secrets and confidential information.

Proceedings at the Arbitration Board are confidential except for the award, which the Arbitration Board can choose to publish in anonymous form if the parties do not object thereto under Section 43 of the Rules of the Arbitration Board.

Section 31 of the DAA requires that the award be in writing and signed by the arbitrators (or the majority of the arbitrators). The award must include the date and place as well. In addition, the award must state the reasons on which it is based, unless the parties have agreed otherwise or have requested a consent award, for example, in cases where a settlement agreement has been reached.

Article 39 of the DIA Rules outlines similar requirements for the form and content of the award.

The DAA contains no explicit time limits on the delivery of the award. If the arbitration takes place at the DIA, it is a fundamental principle that the arbitral tribunal ensures it is conducted within a reasonable time and in an efficient, cost-conscious manner (see Article 28(1) of the DIA Rules). Under Article 39 of the Rules, the award must be submitted by the arbitral tribunal as soon as possible after the conclusion of the oral hearings and, if possible, no later than six months from when the case was referred to the arbitral tribunal by the secretariat of the DIA.

Under Section 25(2) of the Rules of the Arbitration Board, the arbitral tribunal must deliver the award as early as possible and, in so far as possible, no later than four weeks after the hearing is concluded.

There are no general limitations in Danish law on the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may award. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the arbitral tribunal may award any remedy it finds appropriate. However, the legitimacy of remedies contrary to public policy may be questionable.

For the award to be enforceable at the national courts, its conclusion must be clear.

Under Danish law, parties are entitled to recover interest and legal costs.

Under Section 34 of the DAA, the arbitral tribunal determines its own fees and the settlement of its expenses, unless the parties and arbitrators have agreed otherwise. The parties are jointly and severally liable for the costs of the arbitral tribunal (see also Article 42 of the DIA Rules). Under Section 35 of the DAA, the arbitral tribunal can allocate the proportion of costs each party will bear. Within 30 days of receiving notice of the costs, any party may request that the national courts review the determination of the costs of the arbitral tribunal under Section 34(3) of the DAA. The possibility for a party to petition the national courts to review the determination of the costs cannot be derogated from by agreement under Section 2(2) of the DAA.

In most cases, the losing party will, in the award, be required to bear (some of, if not all) the legal costs of the winning party. However, the exact amount of legal costs recoverable by the winning party from its counterparty is at the arbitral tribunal’s discretion. In recent years, there has been a growing tendency to award legal costs closer to the actual amounts paid by the parties.

When arbitral proceedings are filed with the DIA, Article 40(1) of the DIA Rules stipulates that the award will state the costs of the arbitration and the proportion of costs to be borne by the parties. The arbitrator’s costs are to be determined on the basis of an appendix to the Rules under Article 41 and Appendix 2 to the DIA Rules. The award will also determine whether a party will compensate the other party for reasonable costs, including legal costs under Article 40(3) of the DIA Rules.

It is the principal rule in Denmark that arbitral awards are unappealable. However, the national courts can, pursuant to Section 37 of the DAA, set aside an arbitral award or, in line with Section 39 of the DAA, refuse recognition or enforcement of an award. Contesting the validity of an award or refusing to enforce it can only be done in line with the grounds specified in each section (see 12.2 Enforcement Procedure). The specific grounds listed in Sections 37 and 39 largely overlap.

The parties can agree that an arbitral award is appealable. This agreement will derogate from the principal rule (see 11.1 Grounds for Appeal). The parties cannot agree that Section 37 (grounds for setting aside the award) or Section 39 (refusing recognition or enforcement of the award) is not applicable (see Section 2(1) of the DAA).

As mentioned in 11.1 Grounds for Appeal, national courts may, under specific circumstances, challenge the validity of an arbitral award or refuse to recognise or enforce it. The grounds on which an arbitral award may be contested or recognition/enforcement refused, are very narrow according to Sections 37 and 39 of the DAA.

Denmark adopted the New York Convention by ratifying the Convention in 1972. Previously, the Danish implementing act set out a reservation to the applicability of the Convention. However, as of today, Denmark’s domestic law fully incorporates the Convention.

Enforcement Procedure

The matters of recognition and enforcement of awards are governed by Chapter 9 (Sections 38 and 39) of the DAA, which does not deviate substantively from Articles 35 and 36 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. The parties cannot agree to derogate from the applicability of these rules (see Section 2(1) of the DAA).

Subject to Section 39, an arbitral award is recognised as binding and is enforceable in line with the provisions regarding enforcement of judgments of the AJA, irrespective of the country in which it was made. This applies regardless of whether the award is made in a country that has acceded to the New York Convention.

Under Section 39 of the DAA, enforcement of an arbitral award may, at the request of a party, be refused if that party provides sufficient evidence that:

• a party to the arbitration agreement was under some form of incapacity or the agreement is not valid;
• the party against which the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings or was otherwise unable to present its case;
• the award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the arbitration agreement or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; or
• the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended.

The court can also refuse to enforce an arbitral award if it finds that the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Danish law or the recognition or enforcement of the award would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the country.

Commencing Enforcement Proceedings

Enforcement proceedings can be commenced by filing at the competent enforcement court (Fogedretten) in accordance with Chapter 46 of the AJA. The competent enforcement court will generally be where the losing party is domiciled or has its usual place of business.

A party applying for enforcement of an arbitral award must supply the court with a duly certified copy of the award and of the arbitration agreement if the agreement is in writing. The documents will, if necessary, be accompanied by a duly certified translation into Danish.

A proceeding for setting aside an arbitration award will most likely not suspend enforcement. However, enforcement may be suspended if well-supported reasons can be provided – eg, if it is determined that there is a certain probability that the proceeding will lead to the arbitration award being set aside.

The list of grounds for the courts to refuse enforcement in Section 39 is exhaustive and is generally construed narrowly by the courts. The primary rule is that it is irrelevant whether the court responsible for enforcement agrees with the arbitrators’ assessment.

The DAA does not contain provisions that allow for class-action or group arbitration. Articles 15 and 16 of the DIA Rules allow for the consolidation of various claims between the same parties in the same arbitration case or the joinder of third parties (see 13.4 Consolidation). Arbitration cases before the Arbitration Board very often have several parties (see 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties).

Danish Bar-qualified lawyers acting as legal counsel in arbitration must act in accordance with the ethical codes generally applicable to lawyers. For example, it follows from Section 9 of the Code of Conduct for the Danish Bar and Law Society, dated 1 July 2025, that a lawyer may not act as an arbitrator if they have previously acted for or advised any party as their representative in matters connected with the dispute at issue. Similarly, after having acted as an arbitrator, the lawyer may not act for or advise any of the parties as their representative in matters pertaining to the dispute at issue.

Third-party funding is becoming more normal in Denmark. There are no general rules or restrictions on third-party funding in arbitration, but there is a duty of disclosure on the funder (see for example Article 20(4) of the DIA Rules).

Whether an arbitral tribunal can consolidate separate arbitral proceedings depends on the parties’ arbitration agreement. Consolidation can only occur if the arbitration agreement covers all of the parties’ claims. Therefore, the defendant can file a counterclaim for consolidation in the same arbitral proceedings only if it is covered by the same arbitration agreement. Provided the arbitration agreement covers the newly made claim, it follows from Section 23(3) of the DAA that the claim can be made during the course of the arbitral proceedings, unless the arbitral tribunal considers it inappropriate having regard to the delay in making it.

If it is agreed that the arbitration will take place at the DIA, consolidation is regulated by Article 15 of the DIA Rules. Upon the request of a party, the DIA’s Chair’s Committee can decide that separate cases should be consolidated. If the counterparty does not agree to the consolidation, the Chair decides after consulting the parties and confirmed arbitrators in the other proceedings (if any). Under Article 15(3) of the DIA Rules, the Chair’s Committee must consider all relevant circumstances, including the mutual connection between the cases and/or the parties and the progress already made in the pending case, in addition to taking the aforementioned hearings into account.

The courts cannot decide to consolidate separate arbitral proceedings under Section 4 of the DAA.

The principal rule of privity of contracts applies in Denmark, meaning that a third party is not bound by an arbitration agreement or an award issued under it unless the third party has signed the agreement or otherwise accepted being bound by it.

However, in the case of succession (both universal and singular) where the agreement into which the third party is succeeded contains an arbitration clause, this clause will generally be binding upon the third party.

If relevant in a case filed with the national courts, the national courts will interpret the arbitration agreement in order to, inter alia, determine its scope. Should the national courts find that a foreign third party is subject to or bound by the arbitration agreement to the same extent as elaborated in 5. Jurisdiction, the court will bind the third party to the arbitration agreement.

Under Article 16 of the DIA Rules, a party in an arbitration pending under the Rules may request that a third party join as an additional party in the arbitration and, likewise, a third party may request to join as an additional party in an arbitration pending under the Rules. If the third party and/or a party objects to the request to join the additional party, the arbitral tribunal will decide on the objection, after consultation with the third party and the parties under Article 16(3) of the DIA Rules.

Similarly, the DIA Rules allow the consolidation of arbitration cases pending before the Institute under Article 15.