Mellandomens processekonomiska betydelse - Dess konflikt med den successiva relevansens princip

Sammanfattning: With the Supreme Court's decision in NJA 2019 p. 802, the principle of successive relevance became established practice. The principle of successive relevance establishes a sequence that the court must follow when examining the issues in the case. On the other hand, Chapter 17, 5 §, second clause of the Code of Judicial Procedure allows the court to examine one issue before the rest of the issues in the case. If an issue crucial to the case is made the subject of an interlocutory judgment, and the outcome is sufficient to justify a decision on the case, procedural economy gains are achieved. The procedure has been pointed out as a possible deviation from the order of precedence under the principle of successive relevance, but after the interlocutory judgment the question of how the Court should sever the case remains. The purpose of the paper is therefore to investigate how the order of precedence rule affects the court's ability to swiftly sever a case after an interlocutory judgment has been issued. The following questions are used to fulfill the purpose. Is there a conflict between the order of precedence according to the principle of successive relevance and the court's severance of the case after an interlocutory judgment? Based on the answer to question 1, how should the Court sever the case after the interlocutory judgment? In my investigation, I have used the legal dogmatic method and the generally accepted sources of law. Legal text, preparatory works, practice, and doctrine are used for the investigation of the institution of interlocutory judgment. A study of district court decisions is done to see how the severance is carried out in practice. The principle of successive relevance is not regulated by law, nor does it appear in the preparatory works. For this part of the investigation, practice and doctrine are therefore used as sources. In the paper, I conclude that there is a conflict between the rule on the order of precedence and the court's separation of the case by final judgment after an interlocutory judgment has been rendered, when the interlocutory theme is a legal fact invoked by the defendant. District courses sever cases in these situations incorrectly which leads to logically incorrect judgments. One solution to the problem would be to expand the interlocutory theme so that parts of the plaintiff's case are also considered. The conflict does not mean that procedural advantages cannot be achieved with the institution of interlocutory judgment. Firstly, the conflict does not arise when the interlocutory issue is a legal fact invoked by the plaintiff. Secondly, the court has several other options for severing the case. One of these, which is highlighted as particularly interesting in the paper, is conciliation. The interlocutory judgment is important for the parties' willingness to settle. When the court takes a position on a disputed issue, it becomes easier for the parties to assess the likelihood of winning the case. This, in turn, makes it easier for the parties to assess the value of the dispute and generally increases the propensity to settle.