Page 1
Page 1 (11)
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
Announced in
Stockholm
Objective No
T 6120-18
Doc.Id 2017509
Postal address
visiting address
Phone
Telefax
Office hours
Box 8307
104 20 Stockholm
Scheelegatan 7
08-561 652 70
Monday Friday
08: 00–16: 00
Email :
stockholms.tingsratt.avdelning3@dom.se
www.stockholmstingsratt.se
PARTIES
Plaintiff
Christian Ott
Friedelstrasse 34
120 47 Berlin
Germany
Agent: Lawyer Torbjörn Lundquist
The law firm Torbjörn Lundquist
Kungsgatan 37
111 56 Stockholm
Defendant
University of Stockholm
106 91 Stockholm
Agents: General Counsel Markos Stavroulakis and Carl-Axel Holmberg
c / o Stockholm University
106 91 Stockholm
______________________
JUDGMENT
1. Stockholm University must pay Christian Ott SEK 726,000 plus interest
the amount according to section 6 of the Interest Act from 8 August 2018 until payment is made.
2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
______________________
Page 2
Page 2
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
BACKGROUND
Until the fall of 2017, Christian Ott was a professor at the California Institute of Technology
(Caltech). In November 2017, he applied for a postdoctoral fellowship at Nordiska
the Institute for Theoretical Physics (Nordita) which belongs to Stockholm University. IN
In the application letter, Christian Ott stated, among other things, that he had done one four years earlier
mistakes in their supervision of students at Caltech, which led to disciplinary action, and
that he now wished to restart at another institution.
On December 22, 2017, Christian Ott and Stockholm University reached an agreement on
that Christian Ott would be a postdoctoral fellow at Nordita for two years
(scholarship agreement), during which time a compensation of SEK 30,250 per month would be paid.
In addition, a (one-time) overhead compensation of SEK 25,000 would be paid. It touched
does not apply for an employment contract.
On 13 January 2018, Nordita's CEO Hans Hansson contacted Christian Ott and
stated that Nordita could not abide by the agreement reached. At a meeting on
Stockholm University on January 29, 2018, where, among others, Christan Ott and his
legal representatives as well as Hans Hansson and the human resources manager at Stockholm University
Marie Högström was present, it was discussed how the resulting situation could be
solved. A draft employment contract was presented by Stockholm University
from the University of Turku, where Christian Ott had been offered a position as a “senior researcher”
over a two-year period. A few days after the meeting, Christian Ott traveled to Turku and signed
employment contract (Turku Agreement). After a short time - before Christian Ott had time to take office
the service - the University of Turku terminated the employment contract.
A key issue in the case is whether the parties reached a settlement which meant that the Turku Agreement
would replace the scholarship agreement, whereby the termination of the scholarship agreement would not get
some legal effects. The parties agree that it is Stockholm University that has
the burden of proof that such an agreement has been reached.
Page 3
Page 3
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
CLAIMS AND ATTITUDE
Christian Ott demands that Stockholm University be obliged to pay him
damages of SEK 856,000 (of which SEK 751,000 relates to damages due to
termination of the scholarship agreement and SEK 105,000 pertains to other damages) plus interest on
the amount according to section 6 of the Interest Act from the date of service of the summons application (on 8
August 2018) until payment is made.
Stockholm University disputes the claim. It is acknowledged that the contract value has been increased
to SEK 726,000. In addition, the claimed interest is recognized as reasonable in itself.
The parties also claim compensation for their legal costs.
GROUNDS
Christian Ott
Stockholm University has acted negligently by terminating the scholarship agreement without
legal basis, with the justification that it would sink Stockholm University
scientific reputation if Christian Ott was allowed to complete the agreement. Thereby has
Christian Ott entitled to compensation for the damage that the breach of contract has caused him.
This amounts to SEK 751,000, which is the total value of the scholarship agreement (SEK 30,250 in
24 months and a one-time compensation of SEK 25,000).
In addition, Christian Ott is entitled to compensation for pure property damage according to
the principle of culpa in contrahendo / contractu, since Stockholm University through
the contacts that Hans Hansson made after the scholarship agreement was entered into were broken
loyalty duty that Stockholm University had towards Christian Ott. The contacts
resulted in the groundless repeal, which in turn gave activists at Turku
university industry to start the smear campaign against Christian Ott that got to
Page 4
Page 4
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
as a result of the University of Turku terminating the employment contract. There is adequate causality
between Stockholm University's breach of the duty of loyalty and its breach of contract and it
damage that Christian Ott suffered, because it was in the direction of danger that also the Turku Agreement
would be revoked due to what Stockholm University stated as a reason
for its cancellation, which also happened. The damage that has occurred is the costs involved
Christian Ott had for retraining, then after the termination of the agreements from
Stockholm and Turku universities can no longer work in their field of research. He
has paid a total of $ 11,500 for a computer training, which after conversion
corresponds to SEK 105,000.
University of Stockholm
Christian Ott cannot make claims against Stockholm University due to unauthorized use
termination, as the parties entered into a settlement agreement which meant that the Turku Agreement
replaced the scholarship agreement. At the meeting on January 29, 2018, the parties agreed that
Christian Ott against a payment of SEK 30,000 from Stockholm University and it
offered the service in Turku could no longer demand anything under the scholarship agreement. By
that the employment agreement with Turku was signed by Christian Ott became
the settlement agreement with Stockholm University applies. Employment agreement with Turku
and the scholarship agreement with Stockholm University is mutually exclusive, then Christan
Ott could not hold two-year appointments in both places at the same time.
In the event that the district court should find that a settlement agreement with the specified content
has not been confirmed that in such a case it was an unauthorized cancellation of
the scholarship agreement from Stockholm University and that it harms Christian Ott in
such a case suffered amounts to SEK 726,000 (SEK 30,250 for 24 months). However, it is disputed
in all circumstances that the overhead compensation of SEK 25,000 shall be paid, since
Christian Ott de facto never moved to Stockholm and thus had none
costs of establishment.
Page 5
Page 5
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
Furthermore, it is disputed that any damages can be paid according to the principle of fault
contract / contract. There was no such duty of loyalty as Christian Ott states.
If such a duty of loyalty is to be considered to have existed, it is disputed that Hans Hansson's contacts
constituted a breach of this duty. Furthermore, there is a lack of adequate causality between Stockholm
the University's actions and the University of Turku's termination of the employment contract. Adequate
causality is also lacking to the damage Christian Ott claims to have suffered in the form of
retraining costs.
DEVELOPMENT OF SPEECH
Christian Ott
When he applied to Stockholm University, he was completely open about what had happened
him at Caltech. On December 21, 2017, he received the offer from Stockholm
university and the next day he accepted the terms. Thus included
scholarship agreement. The same day he also received an email from Hans Hansson who
welcomed him to Nordita.
After the grant agreement was entered into, linked to the ongoing so-called
the campaign, spreading rumors about Christian Ott on social media regarding the former
the events at Caltech. Hans Hansson contacted outsiders in connection with this
people, probably at Caltech, which resulted in the cancellation of Stockholm University
of the agreement. Stockholm University has not even claimed that they had a valid basis
for its termination.
When Stockholm University offered Christian Ott to solve the situation that arose
by offering him a job at the University of Turku instead was Christian Ott
positive. It was even a more qualified position than the position he held
would have had in Stockholm. At the meeting on January 29, 2018, Christian Ott also expressed
his positive attitude, but was at the same time clear that he was not prepared to let go
the scholarship agreement only by offering him the post in Turku. He was worried about that
Page 6
Page 6
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
what happened in Stockholm could be repeated in Turku and wanted to ensure that he
really got to start the service in Turku. In his view, it existed in and of itself
no obstacle to the scholarship agreement being able to run in parallel with the Turku Agreement, either
if his idea was that he - after getting started in Turku - would not target anyone
claims against Stockholm University in connection with the scholarship agreement.
The compensation from Stockholm University according to the scholarship agreement would be tax-free.
Information from the Swedish Tax Agency's website shows that in the case of tax-free compensation, it does not
may be a matter of a claim for any consideration from the recipient of the scholarship. Of
this, it can be concluded that there was no requirement that Christian Ott should be on
place in Stockholm.
Christian Ott's opinion is that he started at the meeting on January 29, 2018
the discussions regarding a settlement but that no final settlement agreement was reached
state. This had required that the service in Turku also become a reality. He has
thus not waived its possibility to claim damages from Stockholm University
for its negligent termination of the scholarship agreement. For the breach of contract, Christian Ott,
in addition to the approved compensation, also the right to compensation for overheads if
25,000 kr. He had had time to visit and arrange accommodation in Stockholm and has therefore had
such costs as were referred to in the scholarship agreement.
After he signed the Turku Agreement, activists were also heard in Turku and Turku
university terminated the agreement before he had time to take office. After that, he has not been able to get
any employment in the field of research where it took him 20 years to build his
career. He intends to try to earn a living as a freelance computer specialist and
needed to undergo a six-month training for this.
University of Stockholm
After Hans Hansson on 13 January 2018, Christian Ott announced that Stockholm
university could not stand by the scholarship agreement, intensive work began with
Page 7
Page 7
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
to find a solution that could serve as compensation for Christian Ott. Nordita
had established contacts with the University of Turku which resulted in them offering
Christian Ott a post there.
The meeting on January 29, 2018 was preceded by email correspondence between Hans Hansson and
Christian Ott, from which it appears that Christian Ott was positive about the employment in Turku
and that the purpose of the meeting was to find a solution. At the meeting, Hans Hansson showed his
computer a completed employment contract from the University of Turku - the only thing missing was
Christian Ott's signature. When the meeting ended, Christian Ott and Hans shook
Hansson's hand on the agreement reached. There was no doubt that it
the common will of the parties was that a settlement had now been reached. This was confirmed by
Christian Ott just a few days later signed the agreement with the University of Turku. In and
with this, Christian Ott no longer had any opportunities to make claims
Stockholm University in connection with the scholarship agreement.
It is obvious that the scholarship agreement also required a consideration from Christian Ott
and that it is therefore excluded that Christian Ott would have at the same time as this agreement
could have been employed at another university.
PROOF
Christian Ott has been heard during the declaration of truth. Witness interrogation at Stockholm
the university's request was kept with Hans Hansson and Marie Högström.
In addition, both parties have relied on certain written evidence.
Page 8
Page 8
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Damages due to the termination of the scholarship agreement
For the examination of whether any damages are to be paid in connection with the scholarship agreement
revoked is of crucial importance about the parties - as Stockholm University has done
valid - entered into a settlement agreement which means that Christian Ott, by
accept the offered position at the University of Turku, refrained from making any demands
against Stockholm University based on the scholarship agreement. According to this
agreement, the Turku Agreement would thus replace the scholarship agreement. As above
It has been established that Stockholm University has the burden of proof that an agreement with
such content has been met.
In the case, it is undisputed that no written settlement agreement was reached, but
Stockholm University claims that an oral agreement was reached
the meeting on January 29, 2018, which was followed up and completed by Christian Otts
signing of the employment contract in Turku. The parties certainly seem to agree that
the purpose of the current meeting was to try to reach a settlement solution. Christian Ott has
also confirmed that he was in favor of a solution which meant that he was offered a service
at the University of Turku. His view, however, is that no final agreement with that content
as Stockholm University claims has come about.
To support the oral agreement that is enforced, Stockholm University has
mainly referred to the examination of witnesses with Hans Hansson and Marie Högström. Both
the witnesses have stated that they perceived the meeting as a conclusion of the conciliation
the negotiations, provided that Christian Ott signed the employment contract in Turku, and that
the parties at the end of the meeting shook hands as a confirmation of this. Of their interrogation
however, it has not been made clear that anything was actually said at the meeting, so that
thus it was clear that Christian Ott also considered that the settlement agreement had been entered into
at the same time as he signed the Turku Agreement. Any expressed common will of the parties can
thus not considered clarified on the basis of what was said at the meeting.
Page 9
Page 9
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
Stockholm University supports the conclusion of the settlement agreement in the way it did
also stated the fact that Christian Ott could not have
the scholarship agreement on an ongoing basis at the same time as the Turku Agreement. Given that it is
it is undisputed in the case that Stockholm University had terminated the scholarship agreement before
According to the district court, this Turku agreement has certain gaps.
Notwithstanding this, it can be stated that in all circumstances it is not shown in the case that
there was something that prevented the parties from entering into a settlement that meant that Christian
Ott's statement of the possibility of making demands on Stockholm University was linked
to any later event than the actual signing of the Turku Agreement, for example
taking up the post.
Furthermore, the investigation in the case has shown that the settlement that was discussed,
in addition to the service in Turku, would also include a payment from Stockholm University
to Christian Ott for SEK 30,000. Of the witness interviews with Hans Hansson and Marie
Högström has stated that this payment did not take place, however, because in
that part would be drawn up a written contract. This circumstance speaks according to
the district court's opinion with some weight against the claim that a final settlement agreement
was between the parties after the meeting on January 29, 2018.
In summary, the reasoning above means that the district court does not consider that
Stockholm University has succeeded in proving that a settlement agreement has been reached between the parties,
meaning that Christian Ott in connection with the signing of the employment contract in Turku
waived the right to make a claim against Stockholm University in connection with
scholarship agreement. In this case, it is undisputed that the termination of the scholarship agreement
lacked a valid basis and that damages shall be paid in the amount of SEK 726,000. The claim must therefore
approved in this part.
The district court, on the other hand, does not consider that Christian Ott was able to show that he had costs for
its establishment in Stockholm and that an amount of SEK 25,000 should therefore also be paid. IN
this part, the action must therefore be dismissed.
Page 10
Page 10
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
Damages due to culpa in contrahendo / contractu
It is Christian Ott who bears the burden of proving that there is a
obligation due to disloyal action on the part of Stockholm University in this way
asserted in the case. Christian Ott will thus, in order to succeed in this part,
prove the existence of an act giving rise to damages, the existence of damage and
the causal relationship between these.
The action for damages that has been claimed is that Hans Hansson, after that
the scholarship agreement was entered into, made contacts with external actors and discussed
Christian Ott. It can be stated that Hans Hansson certainly stated that he had
conversations with people "in the area" and that these concerned Christian Ott. It has, however
It has not been clarified in detail which contacts were involved and what the conversations were
intended. That these contacts would constitute a disloyal act towards Christian Ott
which can establish a right to damages is thus not shown.
Furthermore, the district court does not consider that Christian Ott has succeeded in proving anything adequate
causal link, neither between the Stockholm District Court's actions and the University of Turku
termination of the employment contract or between the terminations from Stockholm and Turku
university and the stated fact that Christian Ott can no longer work within
their field of research, which is why a retraining was necessary.
It follows from the above that Christian Ott's claim for damages in this part must be rejected.
Summary
The district court's trial thus leads to Stockholm University, for the revocation
of the scholarship agreement, shall pay damages to Christian Ott in the amount of SEK 726,000 plus claimed
(and certified) interest. The action must be dismissed in other respects.
Page 11
Page 11
STOCKHOLM DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT
2019-05-20
T 6120-18
Costs
The main rule in respect of court costs is according to ch. § 1 of the Code of Judicial Procedure that
the losing party shall pay the other party his or her legal costs;
unless otherwise provided. According to ch. Section 4, first paragraph of the Code of Judicial Procedure may
the costs are set off or adjusted when there are several claims and the parties in the same case
wins alternately or if a party's claim is granted only in part. If the party has lost
only to a small extent can the court disregard the relationship when the costs are determined.
Christian Ott wins in principle full approval regarding the part of his action that relates
damages due to breach of contract, but loses the part relating to other damages.
The latter includes - as Christian Ott's action has finally been decided - only
a small part of the total amount claimed. However, the district court may find that
this part of the damages claimed during a large part of the proceedings
in terms of amount, a significantly higher amount than the damages on which it is based
breach of contract and that a relatively large part of the preparation of the case concerned issues linked
to this. In summary, the district court considers that the circumstances are such that each
the party shall bear its own costs.
HOW TO APPEAL , see appendix (TR-02)
An appeal, submitted to the Svea Court of Appeal, must have been received by the district court no later than
June 10, 2019. Trial permit required.
Karin Walberg
Page 12
Page 1 of 2
www.domstol.se
A
n
v
isn
in
gar fö
r ö
v
erk
lagan
the
TR
-0
2
- D
O
m
i tv
iced tea
feel
l
• P
ro
you
cerat av
D
O
m
mare
lsv
erk
et, A
v
d. fö
r do
m
mare
lsu
tveck
flax
g • 2
0
1
8
-11
How to appeal
Judgment in civil cases, district court
TR-02
_______________________________________________________________________
Do you want the verdict to be changed in any part can
you appeal. Here you get to know how it works.
Appeal in writing within 3 weeks
Your appeal must have been received by
the court within 3 weeks from the date of the judgment.
The last date for appeal is the last
page in the judgment.
Appeal after the other party has appealed
If one party has appealed in due time, it has
other party also the right to appeal even if
time has passed. It is called that the connection
appeal against.
A party can appeal connection within a
extra week from the time of appeal
went out. A connection appeal must
thus getting in within 4 weeks of the verdict
date.
A connection appeal expires
if the first appeal is withdrawn or
for some other reason does not proceed.
How to use
1. Write the district court's name and case number.
2. Explain why you think the verdict should
changes. Tell us what change you want
and why you think the Court of Appeal should take
up your appeal (read more about
trial permit further down).
3. Tell what evidence you want to refer to.
Explain what you want to show with each piece of evidence.
Send with written proof that is not already
is in the case.
You may not be able to submit new ones
evidence. If you want to do that, explain why
you have not presented the evidence before.
Do you want new interrogations with someone who already
interrogated or a new sight (for example, visit
in one place), tell it and explain
why.
Also tell if you want the other party to
come in person at a main hearing
ling.
4. Leave name and social security number or
organization number.
Provide current and complete information
about where the court can reach you: postal addresses,
email addresses and phone numbers.
If you have an agent, leave as well
the agent's contact details.
5. Write the appeal yourself or leave yours
agents do so.
6. Send or submit the appeal to
the district court. You will find the address in the judgment.
What happens next?
The district court checks that the appeal
arrived on time. Has it come in for
late, the court dismisses the appeal. The
means that the judgment applies.
If the appeal arrives on time, send
the district court appeal and all documents in
the case on to the Court of Appeal.
Have you previously received letters through simplified
service, the Court of Appeal can also send a letter
this way.
Appendix 1
Page 13
Page 2 of 2
www.domstol.se
A
n
v
isn
in
gar fö
r ö
v
erk
lagan
the
TR
-0
2
- D
O
m
i tv
iced tea
feel
l
• P
ro
you
cerat av
D
O
m
mare
lsv
erk
et, A
v
d. fö
r do
m
mare
lsu
tveck
flax
g • 2
0
1
8
-11
Permission to appeal in the Court of Appeal
When the appeal comes in to the Court of Appeal takes
the court first decides whether the case should be taken
up for trial.
The Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal in four different ways
case.
• The court considers that there is reason
to doubt that the district court ruled correctly.
• The court considers that it is not possible to assess
if the district court has ruled correctly without taking up
the goal.
• The court needs to take up the case to give
other courts guidance in
law enforcement.
• The court considers that there are exceptional
reasons to take up the case by someone else
reason.
If you do not receive a trial permit, it applies
appealed against the judgment. Therefore, it is important that in
the appeal bring everything you want to bring forward.
Do you want to know more?
Contact the district court if you have questions.
Address and telephone number are at first
page in the judgment.
More information is available at www.domstol.se .