Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [A.A.] , represented by attorney Franziska Roth
  • Respondent: [B.A.] , represented by attorneys Dr. Patrick Rohn and Simon Hohler
  • Arbitral tribunal seated in Zurich, represented by attorney [C.]

Facts:

  • On June 4, 2014, [B.A.] and his father [C.A.] concluded an agreement regarding the property at [U.] strasse, [V.] . [A.A.] approved the agreement with the note "with the consent of [A.A.] ".
  • The agreement granted the brothers [A.A.] and [D.A.] a time-limited right of purchase of the property and obliged the signatories to resolve disputes through an arbitrator.
  • The plaintiff wished to exercise the right of purchase, the defendant was not in agreement.
  • On December 20, 2019, the plaintiff appointed Dr. [D.] as arbitrator. The defendant filed a challenge and requested the suspension of the arbitration proceedings.
  • On October 15, 2020, [C.] issued an order, constituted the arbitral tribunal, and lifted the suspension. The costs of the arbitration proceedings were set at CHF 15,000.--.
  • On August 26, 2021, the defendant informed the sole arbitrator that an out-of-court settlement had been reached.
  • By order of December 22, 2021, the sole arbitrator terminated the arbitration proceedings and set the procedural costs at a total of CHF 96,600.--, which were imposed on the plaintiff.

Appeal:

  • The plaintiff requested the Federal Supreme Court to reduce the procedural costs to CHF 30,000.-- and to change the cost distribution.
  • The defendant requested to dismiss the appeal regarding the cost distribution and to reduce the amount of the arbitrator's fee to an appropriate amount.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court first examines whether the prerequisites for the appeal are met. It establishes that the appeal is of a cassatory nature according to Art. 389 ff. CPC and that an exception only applies in cases of obviously excessive compensation and expenses. The appellant has submitted a material legal request and quantified the appropriate compensation and expenses.

The Federal Supreme Court bases its judgment on the facts established by the arbitral tribunal. It cannot correct or supplement the factual findings of the arbitral tribunal, even if they are obviously incorrect. However, it can review the factual findings of the arbitral award if permissible objections are raised in the sense of Art. 393 CPC.

The appellant objects that the set procedural costs of a total of CHF 96,600.-- are obviously too high. He invokes the ground for appeal of arbitrariness…