Hävning Enligt AB 04 Och ABT 06, Vad Gäller 2026 Efter AB 25?

Understanding hävning enligt AB 04 och ABT 06, the right to terminate a construction contract, is critical for every party to a Swedish building project, particularly now that AB 25 and ABPU 25 are set to replace the legacy standard agreements that have governed the industry for over two decades. The new agreements introduce an explicit anticipatory-breach termination right while clarifying notice, cure and cancellation mechanics under a restructured Chapter 10. This guide provides the practical grounds, step-by-step procedures, comparison tables and compliance checklists that project owners, contractors and in-house counsel need to navigate termination in 2026 and beyond.

Background: AB 04 vs ABT 06, Hävning Basics

Sweden’s construction sector has relied on two principal standard-form agreements published by Föreningen BKK. AB 04 (Allmänna bestämmelser för byggnads-, anläggnings- och installationsentreprenader) governs traditional execution contracts (utförandeentreprenader), where the employer supplies the design documents and the contractor builds to specification. ABT 06 (Allmänna bestämmelser för totalentreprenader) applies to design-and-build contracts (totalentreprenader), where the contractor is responsible for both design and construction. Although the two agreements mirror each other structurally, the allocation of design risk means that the factual triggers for hävning can differ in practice.

Key Hävning Provisions

In both AB 04 and ABT 06, the employer’s right to terminate is set out in Chapter 8, § 1, while the contractor’s corresponding right appears in Chapter 8, § 2. The provisions enumerate an exhaustive list of grounds, a point confirmed in legal commentary published by Svensk Juristtidning, meaning that a party may only terminate for the specific reasons stated in the contract, not on general breach-of-contract principles drawn from the Swedish Sale of Goods Act (köplagen).

Typical Factual Triggers

Despite the shared legal architecture, the practical scenarios that lead to termination often differ between AB 04 and ABT 06 contracts. Under AB 04, disputes typically arise from execution failures, delays, defective workmanship, or failure to follow the employer’s technical documents. Under ABT 06, the contractor’s broader design responsibility introduces additional risk surfaces, including deficient project engineering, failure to meet functional requirements, or design-related delays that make timely completion impossible. In both cases, the threshold for termination is deliberately high: the standard agreements treat hävning as a last resort, to be exercised only when no lesser remedy will suffice.

When Can You Lawfully Terminate Under AB 04 and ABT 06?, Grounds and Thresholds

The grounds for hävning enligt AB 04 och ABT 06 are intentionally narrow. The standard agreements reflect a consensus-based approach, negotiated by employer and contractor organisations alike, that favours contract continuation over premature cancellation. Nonetheless, when certain thresholds are met, termination is available to both parties.

Grounds for the Employer (Beställare)

Under Chapter 8 § 1 of AB 04 and ABT 06, the employer may terminate the contract when any of the following circumstances exist:

• Impossibility of timely completion. It must be uppenbart (obvious/apparent) to the employer that the works cannot be completed within the contract period, and the delay is not caused by the employer or circumstances for which the employer bears risk.
• Serious defects in execution. The contractor is performing the works in a manner that is clearly incompatible with the contract, and has failed to remedy the situation after receiving a written warning.
• Insolvency or bankruptcy. The contractor has been declared bankrupt, entered into a composition with creditors, or otherwise demonstrated an inability to fulfil its financial obligations under the contract.
• Failure to provide required security. Where the contract obliges the contractor to furnish a performance guarantee or insurance, a failure to do so after a formal demand constitutes a termination ground under Chapter 6 § 21, read together with Chapter 8.

Grounds for the Contractor (Entreprenör)

The contractor’s right to terminate under Chapter 8 § 2 is a mirror image, though exercised less frequently in practice. Available grounds include:

• Non-payment. The employer has failed to make payment in accordance with the contract, and the failure is material and not subject to a legitimate set-off claim.
• Employer insolvency. The employer has entered bankruptcy or cannot demonstrate the financial capacity to fulfil its payment obligations.
• Failure to provide required security. The employer has not furnished a payment guarantee or other contractually required security after demand.

Threshold Tests and Evidence Required

The burden of proof lies squarely with the terminating party. According to academic analysis from Lund University, the standard agreements use two key threshold terms: uppenbart (obvious) and väsentligt (material/essential). The “obvious” test for impossibility of completion demands objective, contemporaneous evidence, schedule comparisons, resource logs, and progress photographs, not merely a subjective fear that time will overrun. The “material” test for defects or default requires that the breach go to the root of the contract, not merely amount to a minor deviation. Industry observers expect that the arrival of AB 25 will not soften these thresholds but will instead extend them to a new category: anticipatory breach.

AB 25 Termination, What Changed in 2026 (Chapter 10 Deep Dive)

The revision of AB 04 and ABT 06, led by Föreningen BKK, reached a critical milestone when the consultation period (remisstid) for the replacement agreements, AB 25 and ABPU 25, closed in late February 2025. The new standard agreements are expected to take effect during the first half of 2026, replacing the frameworks that have underpinned Swedish construction procurement for over two decades.

AB 25 replaces AB 04 for execution contracts. ABPU 25 replaces ABT 06 for design-and-build contracts, adopting the new designation “PU” (projektering och utförande) in place of the previous “T” (totalentreprenad). The term “Definitions” replaces “Terminology” at the outset of the agreements, signalling a broader effort toward clarity and modernisation.

Anticipatory Breach, Definition and Mechanics

The single most significant AB 25 termination change is the codification of an anticipatory-breach right. Under the existing AB 04/ABT 06 framework, termination was only available once a breach had actually occurred or, in the case of impossibility, once it was obvious that the contractor could not finish on time. AB 25 now allows a party to terminate where it is clear that a material breach will occur, even if performance is not yet due. This aligns Swedish construction standard agreements more closely with Section 62 of the Swedish Sale of Goods Act, which provides a similar anticipatory-termination mechanism for sale-of-goods contracts.

Chapter 10, Notice Periods, Cure Windows and Cancellation Procedure

Under AB 04 and ABT 06, the procedural requirements for termination were implied rather than spelled out. AB 25’s restructured Chapter 10 addresses this gap by codifying a formal cancellation procedure. The likely practical effect will be a three-stage process: written notice identifying the ground and the evidence relied upon, a mandatory cure window during which the defaulting party may remedy the breach, and a formal declaration of termination if the cure window expires without resolution. Industry observers expect that the cure window will be calibrated to the severity of the breach, shorter for insolvency-type events, longer for execution defaults that may still be correctable.

Contract Drafting Tips to Adopt AB 25 Language

Parties entering new contracts in 2026 should consider the following drafting adjustments:

• Expressly incorporate AB 25 or ABPU 25 and confirm which version applies if the contract was negotiated during the transition period.
• Define “material breach” in the special conditions (AFC/AFD) with project-specific examples, e.g., delay exceeding a stated number of weeks, failure to mobilise key personnel, or repeated non-compliance with safety requirements.
• Specify cure windows by clause rather than relying solely on the standard agreement’s default, particularly for time-critical milestones.
• Cross-reference notice provisions with the contract’s dispute-resolution clause to ensure that a termination notice does not inadvertently trigger arbitration timelines prematurely.

Anticipatory Breach, Practical Test and Step-by-Step

Exercising the new anticipatory-breach right under AB 25 demands disciplined evidence-gathering and strict procedural compliance. A premature or poorly documented termination exposes the terminating party to liability for wrongful hävning, a risk that increases when the breach has not yet materialised.

Evidence Checklist

Before issuing any termination notice based on anticipatory breach, the terminating party should assemble the following evidence:

1. Updated programme/schedule showing forecast completion date versus contractual deadline.
2. Contemporaneous site diaries and progress reports documenting under-resourcing, stoppages, or quality failures.
3. Correspondence in which the defaulting party has acknowledged difficulties or requested extensions.
4. Financial indicators, late payments to subcontractors, credit warnings, or publicly filed insolvency applications.
5. Expert opinions (if available) confirming that recovery of the programme is not feasible within the remaining contract period.
6. Records of any earlier warnings or notices issued under the standard agreement.

Template Notice, Warning of Imminent Breach

A notice invoking the anticipatory-breach right should include, at minimum:

• Clear identification of the contract (project name, contract number, date).
• Reference to the specific AB 25 clause relied upon.
• A factual summary of the evidence demonstrating that a material breach will occur.
• A statement of the cure window, i.e., the period within which the defaulting party must remedy the situation or provide satisfactory assurances.
• A declaration that, absent satisfactory cure, the contract will be terminated at the expiry of the stated period.
• Instructions for delivering any response (address, contact person, method of service).

Notice of Cancellation Under AB 04 and AB 25, Drafting, Timing and Sample Text

Whether under the existing AB 04/ABT 06 framework or the new AB 25 regime, a termination notice that is vague, late, or improperly served can undermine the entire hävning. The following guidance applies to both regimes, with AB 25-specific additions noted.

What to Include in a Notice

• Identification. Full names and registration numbers of the parties, contract reference, and project description.
• Legal basis. The specific chapter and section relied upon (e.g., AB 04 Chapter 8 § 1, point 1; or the corresponding AB 25 clause).
• Facts. A concise, evidence-backed narrative, dates, events, documents relied upon. Avoid conclusory language without supporting specifics.
• Cure opportunity. Under AB 25, the notice must state the cure window and what the defaulting party must do to avoid termination. Under AB 04/ABT 06, industry best practice is to include such a statement even though it is not expressly required.
• Consequence. A clear statement that the contract will be terminated if the cure window expires without adequate remedy.

Proof of Service and Record-Keeping

Serve the notice by a method that creates an independent record of delivery: registered mail with return receipt, courier with signed proof of delivery, or, if permitted by the contract, email followed by a hard-copy confirmation. Retain copies of all correspondence, delivery receipts, and internal decision-making memoranda. In any subsequent dispute, the quality of contemporaneous records often determines the outcome.

Sample Structure for a Formal Termination Letter

1. Heading: “Notice of Termination, [Project Name] / [Contract No.]”
2. Opening paragraph: identification of parties and contract.
3. Background paragraph: summary of the ground for termination (cross-referencing earlier warnings if applicable).
4. Legal basis paragraph: the specific clause and the evidence relied upon.
5. Termination declaration: the date on which termination takes effect (or reference to the expiry of the cure window).
6. Post-termination instructions: arrangements for site access, handover of materials, valuation process, and return of security.
7. Closing: reservation of rights (including the right to claim damages) and contact details for further correspondence.

Risks and Remedies After Hävning, Consequences, Compensation and Mitigation

Once hävning takes effect, the contract ceases to operate prospectively. Neither party is obliged to perform further, but rights and obligations that accrued before termination, including payment for work already completed and claims for damages, survive.

Compensation Scenarios and Calculation

Under AB 04/ABT 06 Chapter 8 § 6, the employer who terminates on account of the contractor’s breach is entitled to compensation for the additional cost of completing the works, any delay-related losses, and other direct damages. The contractor, in turn, is entitled to payment for work completed to the point of termination and for materials delivered to site. AB 25 early indications suggest that the post-termination valuation methodology will be clarified further, with explicit guidance on treatment of overhead contributions, profit on uncompleted work, and subcontractor claims.

Risk of Wrongful Hävning, Defence and Mitigation

An employer who terminates without adequate grounds, obefogad hävning, effectively commits a material breach itself. The contractor can claim full expectation damages, including lost profit on the uncompleted portion of the contract. To mitigate this risk:

• Document exhaustively before serving notice. A contemporaneous evidence file is the single most important defence.
• Obtain legal advice on threshold issues, particularly where the ground involves subjective assessments such as “obvious” impossibility.
• Consider alternatives to termination: acceleration agreements, partial termination of specific scope elements, or negotiated exit terms.
• Engage an independent surveyor or expert to assess progress and forecast completion, creating a neutral evidence base.

Practical Hävning Checklista and Decision Tree

The following compliance checklist is designed for in-house legal teams and project managers assessing whether to proceed with termination under AB 04, ABT 06 or AB 25.

1. Confirm which standard agreement governs the contract (AB 04, ABT 06, AB 25 or ABPU 25).
2. Identify the specific termination ground and the corresponding clause.
3. Assemble contemporaneous evidence supporting the ground (see Evidence Checklist above).
4. Verify that any contractual preconditions have been satisfied (e.g., prior written warning, demand for security).
5. Determine the required cure window (under AB 25) or apply best-practice cure notice (under AB 04/ABT 06).
6. Draft the termination notice with all required content (legal basis, facts, cure opportunity, consequence).
7. Select a service method that creates proof of delivery.
8. Notify relevant stakeholders, subcontractors, guarantors, insurers, project financiers.
9. Secure the site and protect works, materials and equipment pending handover.
10. Commission a post-termination valuation of completed work and materials on site.
11. Reserve all rights in writing, including the right to claim damages, at the point of termination.
12. Engage legal counsel to advise on dispute resolution strategy (arbitration or court proceedings as applicable).

Decision-tree question: Has the defaulting party been given a written warning and reasonable opportunity to cure? If no, issue a warning first. If yes, and the cure window has expired without remedy, proceed to formal termination.

Recent Practice and Case Law Highlights (2020–2025)

While the AB standard agreements are private-law instruments rather than statutes, their interpretation by arbitral tribunals and, on occasion, the Swedish courts generates persuasive guidance. The following practice highlights illustrate how termination disputes have been resolved in recent years.

Three Concise Case Summaries

• Exclusivity of termination grounds. Legal commentators in Svensk Juristtidning have confirmed that the termination grounds listed in AB 04 Chapter 8 are exhaustive. A party cannot supplement them with general Swedish contract-law principles unless the standard agreement has been expressly amended.
• Evidence threshold for “obvious” impossibility. In a widely cited arbitral proceeding, the tribunal held that a three-month programme overrun was insufficient to establish that completion was “obviously” impossible where the contractor had presented a credible recovery plan. The lesson: subjective concern is not enough, the evidence must demonstrate objective impossibility.
• Damages for wrongful termination. Commentary in Juridisk Tidskrift has analysed cases where employers terminated without sufficient grounds. Contractors successfully claimed lost profit on the uncompleted scope, mobilisation and demobilisation costs, and costs of maintaining performance guarantees during the dispute. Early indications suggest that AB 25’s clearer procedural requirements will reduce, but not eliminate, the incidence of wrongful hävning claims.

Conclusion, Hävning enligt AB 04 och ABT 06 in 2026

The rules governing hävning enligt AB 04 och ABT 06 remain the baseline for thousands of active construction contracts across Sweden, and they will continue to apply to projects signed before AB 25 takes effect. For new projects in 2026, however, the AB 25 termination framework brings welcome clarity: an explicit anticipatory-breach right, codified notice and cure procedures under Chapter 10, and refined post-termination valuation rules. Parties who invest in early compliance, updating contract templates, training project teams, and reviewing dispute-resolution clauses, will be best positioned to manage termination risk in the new regulatory environment.

Sources

1. Föreningen BKK, Revidering av AB 04 och ABT 06
2. Svensk Byggtjänst, AB 25 och ABPU 25 – De nya standardavtalen 2026
3. Advokatfirman Fylgia, New AB 25: Key Changes in Sweden’s Standard Agreements
4. Svensk Juristtidning, Beställarens hävningsrätt enligt AB 04 och ABT 06
5. Lund University, Hävning enligt AB 04 och ABT 06
6. Lindahl, AB 04 and ABT 06: Update on the BKK Revision
7. DLA Piper RealWorld, Delay in Sweden
8. Approvus, AB 25 och ABPU 25