Litigation through public courts is the main method of resolving commercial disputes in Norway. Court mediation is embedded within the system, and the court decides that mediation shall take place it it deems it appropriate.

Larger commercial disputes are often resolved in arbitration, since most commercial contracts include an arbitration clause. Arbitration pursuant to the Norwegian Arbitration Act, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, is common in disputes between Norwegian entities. Institutional arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), Oslo Chamber of Commerce or Nordic Offshore & Maritime Arbitration (NOMA) will often be applied in cross-border matters.

The ordinary courts are the principal and most commonly used forum for dispute resolution in Norway, for both private and commercial disputes. This is typically the case for:

• contractual disputes and claims for payment;
• real estate and construction disputes;
• damage claims; and
• corporate and shareholder disputes (post-M&A).

Judicial mediation is an embedded part of dispute resolution in ordinary courts. The district court decides that mediation shall take place it it deems it appropriate. In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on resolving disputes through mediation. As a result, a substantial number of disputes are resolved amicably. Judicial mediation may also be attempted in the appeal courts.

Arbitration is also widely used as a dispute resolution mechanism, particularly within certain sectors; it is frequently used in shipping, offshore and energy disputes, post-M&A disputes and construction disputes. Purely domestic disputes are often resolved pursuant to the Norwegian Arbitration Act, whilst international disputes typically follow one of the institutional arbitration regimes eg, ICC, NOMA or the Oslo Chamber of Commerce). As with disputes in the ordinary courts, arbitration disputes may also be resolved through mediation, although that relies more on the parties’ approach.

Dispute resolution in Norway is gradually changing. A notable development is the growing importance of mediation, following amendments to the Dispute Act, under which the courts shall decide on mediation where the case is suitable for that. Large and complex commercial disputes are increasingly being resolved by way of mediation.

There is also a trend towards more active case management from the courts, and a stronger focus on proportionality, to resolve disputes effectively. Arbitration is primarily a feature of larger, often international disputes in which speed, confidentiality and sector-specific expertise are the main considerations. At the same time, digital conduct of litigation has become standard.

The introduction of re-use of audio and video recordings from the oral hearings in the district court in appeals cases is part of a wider modernisation of the appeal process. The lawmakers have endorsed a general rule that recordings of party and witness testimonies from the district court are to be played in the court of appeal, rather than the evidence being given again, subject to exceptions where required in the interest of a fair hearing. The reform presupposes wider use of recording equipment in the district courts, and is intended to make appeals more efficient and promote greater consistency of treatment, while also sharpening the focus on thorough presentation of evidence at first instance.

According to the main rule, the general limitation period is three years. If the claim is based on a breach of a contract, the limitation period normally runs from the date of the breach – for example, from the date of delivery of a defective item. The limitation period for claims in tort/delict runs from the date when the injured party knew, or should have known, of the occurrence of the damage and the liable party.

In addition, there are several limitation periods that will apply in relation to particular claims. A supplementary one-year period will apply if the creditor has been unable to pursue the claim due to lack of necessary knowledge; this supplementary period will apply on all types of claims. However, the time limit for contractual claims may only be extended for ten years, giving a maximum time limit of 13 years for such claims. For claims in tort, a maximum time limit of 20 years from the time of the damage applies.

It is worth noting that time limitation will be interrupted only by legal steps, or by the debtor’s acknowledgement. Agreements between the parties to suspend limitation for a certain period of time are not uncommon. A demand letter or a notice of claim will not interrupt limitation under Norwegian law.

The Norwegian court structure has a three level system:

• District Courts;
• Appeal Courts; and
• the Supreme Court at the top.

In addition, submission of the claim to the conciliation board is mandatory for low-value claims, before going to court. The court system is unitary and has general jurisdiction, and applies to both civil and criminal cases. Unlike several other jurisdictions, there are no separate administrative courts.

Before initiating legal proceedings, the claimant shall give a written notice of the claim to the defendant. The notice shall describe and identify the claim, and state its factual and legal grounds. It shall also require the defendant to reply within a reasonable timeframe. Significant written evidence shall be attached, insofar as it must be assumed that the defendant does not possess such evidence already. This also applies when the defendant replies.

Non-compliance with the requirement to give written notice to the defendant will not lead to dismissal of the claim. However, the court may take non-compliance into consideration when deciding the costs of the matter. In particular, that may happen if the claim is accepted by the defendant in the first reply to the writ.

After a notice has been given and answered, the claimant may file the claim. For certain claims, prior proceedings at the conciliation board are mandatory. In most matters of a certain complexity, the conciliation board will not handle the matter, and will solely refer it to the district court.

The District Court is the court of first instance. Proceedings are commenced by filing a writ of summons, to which the defendant responds by submitting a written defence statement. The court will then convene a case management hearing, where a timetable for the proceedings is set. If the court considers the case suitable for judicial mediation, it will decide that mediation shall take place; many cases are resolved in that way. Following further written preparation, and assuming that the matter is not resolved amicably, the case proceeds to the main hearing, at which documentary and witness evidence is presented. As a general rule, judgment must be handed down within two weeks of the main hearing.

A decision from the District Court may be appealed to the Appeal Court. The court of appeal may deny the appeal if it is clear on the merits that the appeal will be unsuccessful. If the appeal is granted, the Appeal Court will hear the case and, as a starting point, the evidence will be presented again. In some cases, however, the witness statements from the District Court are re-used by way of video recordings, and it has been decided that this shall be implemented as the main rule. The parties may also submit additional evidence before the Appeal Court.

A decision of the Appeal Court may be appealed to the Supreme Court. However, a case must raise issues of principle in order for an appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court; most appeals are therefore not allowed. Proceedings before the Supreme Court focus on the key issues, and all evidence is presented in writing. A judgment of the Supreme Court is final and cannot be appealed further.

As a general rule, the main hearing is open to the public. The parties may apply for all or part of the hearing to be held in private (closed doors) – for example, where the case involves sensitive personal matters, or trade secrets and confidential business information. In any event, the parties must explain and substantiate why it is necessary for particular parts of the proceedings, or the proceedings as a whole, to remain confidential. Hearing are only exempted from being public in narrowly defined cases, and this does not occur often in practice.

A claimant may seek various forms of interim relief. If the underlying claim is established on a prima facie basis and there are grounds for security, the claimant may apply for an interim injunction requiring the defendant to take, refrain from taking, or permit a particular action. No such injunction will be granted if it would amount to a disproportionate interference with the defendant’s interests. It is also a condition that the claimant takes legal steps to obtain a final determination of the claim within a certain time limit.

A claimant may also apply for an arrest to secure a monetary claim. This requires that the defendant’s conduct gives reason to fear that enforcement of the claim would otherwise be frustrated or made substantially more difficult, or would have to take place outside Norway. The defendant may avert such an order by providing security for the claim.

Applications for interim relief are not uncommon, whether brought as standalone proceedings or as part of ordinary litigation.

Under Norwegian law, the courts may grant either executory or declaratory relief. An executory judgment may order the defendant to pay a specified sum. It may also require the defendant to do, or refrain from doing, a particular act. The court may order specific performance – for example, fulfilment of contractual obligations.

The court may also grant declaratory relief – for example, determining whether a right exists and how a contractual provision is to be construed. It may also declare an administrative decision or a unilateral contractual declaration invalid.

Norwegian law applies the principle that the injured party shall receive full compensation for its financial loss. This will, as a starting point, include both direct loss and indirect loss, unless the latter has been excluded – for example, in a contract. The injured party should be placed in the same financial position as it would have been in had the harmful act not occurred. In commercial disputes, only economically quantifiable loss is relevant: punitive damages are not awarded.

Loss is assessed on a differential basis, by comparing the actual position following the loss with the position that the injured party hypothetically would have been in had the loss not occurred. In addition, there must be an adequate and foreseeable causal link between the wrongful act or omission, and the loss for which compensation is sought.

Most disputes in Norway are resolved by the ordinary courts. However, arbitration is a well-established and commonly used mechanism in commercial matters. In particular, arbitration clauses are highly prevalent in share purchase agreements (SPAs), and most M&A disputes are resolved in arbitration. Arbitration is also frequently used in sectors such as energy, construction and shipping, where parties typically favour confidentiality and specialist decision-makers.

Arbitration cannot be agreed between a consumer and a professional party prior to the dispute arising. More generally, arbitration is only permissible in matters over which the parties have full disposal. As a result of the latter restriction, certain categories of disputes are not arbitrable under Norwegian law, including, for example, matters relating to family law (such as custody and visitation rights) and other issues involving public law considerations or rights that are not freely disposable by the parties.

The main advantages of arbitration are the ability to ensure the confidentiality of the proceedings and the award, and the parties’ autonomy to appoint arbitrators with relevant legal and commercial expertise. Please note that, under the Norwegian Arbitration Act, confidentiality must be specifically agreed. Arbitration is also often perceived as offering greater flexibility in terms of procedure and scheduling compared to court litigation.

The level of costs is the most commonly cited disadvantage of arbitration, particularly in relation to smaller claims. In addition, the absence of a right of appeal on the merits may be seen as a drawback – for example, in complex or high-value disputes.

In Norway, most arbitrations are conducted on an ad hoc basis, rather than under the auspices of arbitral institutions. Where institutional arbitration is used, the Oslo Chamber of Commerce is the primary domestic institution. In international matters, parties may also refer disputes to well-established institutions, such as the ICC or the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. For shipping matters, NOMA is becoming more common.

Arbitral proceedings are typically relatively efficient, with hearings often lasting around three to five days. There are notable exceptions to that timeframe – for example, in construction disputes. The overall duration of proceedings will vary depending on the complexity of the case, but they are generally shorter than ordinary litigation, taking into consideration that a decision from the District Court may be appealed to the Appeal Court, and then possibly to the Supreme Court.

Arbitration in Norway is governed by the Norwegian Arbitration Act of 2004, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (arbitration “ad hoc”). The Act provides a comprehensive framework for arbitration, including rules on arbitration agreements, the tribunal, procedure and awards. It should be noted that the nomination of arbitrators will normally be done by the parties in common.

Norway is a party to the 1958 New York Convention, and foreign arbitral awards are generally recognised and enforced, subject to limited exceptions. The courts play a supportive and supervisory role, and the framework is generally considered arbitration-friendly, with strong emphasis on party autonomy and finality.

The courts may assist arbitral proceedings by taking evidence upon request from the tribunal, including party testimony, witness testimony and other forms of evidence, such as written evidence. They may also grant interim relief in support of arbitration where appropriate.

In addition, the arbitration tribunal may request that Norwegian courts refer questions concerning the interpretation of the EEA Agreement to the EFTA Court, insofar as this will be relevant for the tribunal when deciding the matter.

The courts may intervene in arbitration in limited circumstances, including:

• deciding on challenges to arbitrators;
• granting interim relief even where the dispute is to be resolved by arbitration; and
• reviewing the validity of an arbitral award, including in set-aside proceedings.

Arbitration tribunals may grant the same types of relief as the ordinary courts, including declaratory relief, damages and other civil remedies. The tribunal may:

• rule on its own jurisdiction, including the validity of the arbitration agreement;
• decide on challenges to arbitrators;
• grant interim measures, unless otherwise agreed by the parties; and
• render the final award.

In Norway, ADR refers to methods of resolving disputes outside the ordinary courts. It is not a single legal regime, but a collective term for several mechanisms, including out-of-court mediation, formal ADR, arbitration and complaint boards.

Referring to formal ADR specifically, under the Dispute Act, ADR procedures include both court-led mediation (rettsmekling) and non-judicial mediation (utenrettslig mekling). In addition, the courts have a duty to actively consider and facilitate amicable settlement between the parties.

More generally, parties are free to negotiate a settlement at any stage – prior to, during and after litigation or arbitration.

There is no general obligation for parties to engage in ADR. However, the court may decide that judicial court-led mediation shall take place if it finds that the matter is suitable for that. If a party fails to participate or does not engage in good faith, this may have consequences for the court’s allocation of costs, but no further sanctions apply.

ADR in general has no material impact on court proceedings. Formal ADR (such as judicial mediation) presupposes that a writ has already been filed, meaning that the case is already pending before the courts when ADR takes place.

ADR may take place before, during and after court proceedings; as such, ADR in itself does not suspend limitation periods. However, the filing of a writ – which enables formal ADR under the Dispute Act – interrupts the running of limitation periods.

During court-led mediation, the negotiations are confidential. The mediating judge may not play a future role in the case nor report from the negotiations, including to other judges, if a settlement is not reached. If the settlement is made through an in-court settlement, that in-court settlement is public, as it has the same effect as a judgment. For that reason, it is not uncommon to enter into an out-of-court settlement even if the settlement has been reached through court-ed mediation. With regard to both out-of-court negotiations and out-of-court settlements, parties are advised to enter into a non-disclosure agreement if they want to keep the outcome confidential.

The parties typically bear their own legal costs when a case is settled amicably. Court fees are usually borne by the claimant. Any additional costs, such as fees for extra mediators, are generally shared equally between the parties, unless otherwise agreed.

Over the past 20 years, the courts have been a key driving force behind the development and use of ADR in Norway, and generally take a proactive and positive approach to mediation. As a result, it is assumed that around 70% of cases referred to court-led mediation are settled.

Legal fees must be agreed between the legal counsel and the client. Over recent years, the amount charged per hour by the attorney has been increasing.

In court cases, the allocation of legal costs is regulated by the Dispute Act. The court may award costs to the winning party (fully or in part) or decide that each party shall cover its own costs. The latter is typically where the court has been in doubt, or where the case is neither won nor lost by any of the parties. In the award, the court decides the size of the awarded amount on the basis of what has been necessary or reasonable for preparing and litigating the case. A party may also request the court to rule on what is a reasonable amount for the services rendered by the party’s own attorney.

Third-party funding is available from some large funders in the market, but is not very commonly applied. Such funding will be limited to large cases with large economic claims, or when the plaintiff lacks the necessary funds. It should be noted that the remuneration agreed between the funder and the party, whether it is based on a multiple of the involved claim or otherwise, may not be claimed against the counterparty as a cost in the cost submission.

According to the Norwegian Bar Association’s code of conduct, attorneys are not permitted to receive a cut or a certain percentage of the economic result in a dispute, as this contradicts the attorney’s independence of the outcome. Arrangements based on “no cure, no pay” or “if good cure, then good pay” are possible, but are not very common.

Insurance coverage for litigation is available, but mainly as standard clauses in the insurance agreement for estates, or as specific coverage for board members and for professionals who may risk causing damages when performing their profession – lawyers, doctors, construction companies, etc. In addition, most home insurance includes a certain and quite restricted coverage of legal costs for the handling of private claims and disputes.

Dispute resolution costs may be recovered from the other side. As a main rule, the court shall award costs to the winning party. If the case is not lost or won by any of the parties, the court may decide that each party shall cover its own costs. This may typically happen in cases with several claims. In the award, the court shall decide the size of the awarded amount, on the basis of what has been necessary or reasonable for preparing and litigating the case. A party may also request the court to rule on what is a reasonable amount for the services rendered by that party’s own attorney. This aligns with an increased focus on procedural efficiency.

When awarding costs, the court looks upon what is considered to be reasonable and necessary costs in the individual case, based on the extent of the matter and the involved interests. There are no fixed standards, hence the field is quite open.

Under Norwegian law, there are two forms of interim relief: the courts may order either an arrest of goods or an interim injunction to secure a claim. Arrest is used to secure monetary claims, whilst interim injunction is used for non-monetary claims – for example, to prevent the publication of a book or to interrupt an ongoing and assertedly damaging activity.

Interim relief may be granted by the ordinary courts even if the dispute is subject to arbitration, as provided in Article 8 of the Norwegian Arbitration Act. The reason is that interim measures ordered by an arbitral tribunal are not enforceable. The same applies where the seat of arbitration is abroad or has not yet been determined. A request for interim relief in arbitration presupposes that an arbitration panel has been appointed. Since this may take time, interim relief may be less effective.

While a petition for interim relief may be filed both before proceedings are commenced and during the course of the proceedings, most applications are filed prior to proceedings commencing. It is not a condition that the main action has already been brought, but the court may set a time limit for bringing the main action. Also, an application for interim relief may be filed simultaneously with the writ, in the same process.

As a general rule, the Dispute Act allows a defendant to request security for costs where the claimant is not domiciled in an EU/EEA state. Such security may be ordered unless it would be contrary to an international obligation requiring equal treatment, or unless it would be disproportionate in light of the nature of the case, the parties’ relationship and the circumstances generally. The purpose of the provision is to address the risk of non‑recovery of cost awards against claimants domiciled outside the EU/EEA. A request for security must be made at the earliest opportunity.

Arrest of assets or interlocutory measures to secure a claim are granted where the claimant establishes a prima facie case and a need for security, such as a risk of substantial harm or frustration of the claim. Arrest of monetary claims is typically ordered where there is a risk that the respondent will dissipate assets, while interlocutory measures are commonly used to prevent irreversible harm. Where there is a risk in delay, interim relief may be granted even if the underlying claim has not been established on a prima facie basis.

Under Norwegian law, the closest equivalent to summary judgment is simplified judgment proceedings under Section 9-8 of the Dispute Act. A party may request such a judgment during the preparatory stage and before the main hearing. The court may grant the request where it is evident that the claim cannot succeed, in whole or in part, or that the objections to the claim are wholly unsustainable. The court will only entertain such a request if it considers there are grounds for doing so, and the decision whether to proceed under this mechanism is not separately appealable.

Class actions (gruppesøksmål) are governed by Chapter 35 of the Norwegian Dispute Act. They may be brought where multiple claims arise from the same or substantially similar factual and legal grounds, and a class action is considered the most appropriate procedure.

As a main rule, class actions are opt-in. Opt-out actions may be permitted in cases involving numerous low-value claims, subject to stricter conditions and court approval.

The court must approve the class action and appoint a class representative to safeguard the interests of the class. Judgments are binding on all class members, subject to the applicable opt-in or opt-out mechanism.

To bring a class action, the claimant must be either a member of the class or an entity (such as an organisation) capable of safeguarding the interests of the class. The court must approve the class representative, who must be suitable to adequately represent the class.

To participate, individuals must fall within the defined scope of the class. In opt-in actions, class members must actively register to be included. In opt-out actions, individuals are automatically included unless they actively withdraw.

Class actions may seek the same types of relief as individual proceedings, including declaratory relief, damages and other civil remedies.

Damages are calculated on the basis of the individual loss suffered by each class member, in accordance with the ordinary principles of Norwegian law. Where appropriate, the court may structure the proceedings to determine common issues collectively, while leaving the individual quantification of damages to a subsequent stage.

Class actions and mass claims are rarely brought in arbitration in Norway. Arbitration is based on party consent and is therefore generally not well suited to collective proceedings involving multiple parties who have not all agreed to arbitrate.

Class actions remain relatively limited in Norway, but their use has gradually increased in recent years. They are most commonly seen in consumer, competition and financial services disputes, often supported or driven by interest organisations.

There is also a growing focus on co-ordinated mass claims as a strategic tool to handle multiple similar claims efficiently. However, individual proceedings continue to be the dominant approach in practice. It should be noted that individual proceedings may include numerous parties on the claimant side, which may help procedural efficiency.

Any party to litigation has a duty of disclosure and a duty of truth, pursuant to the Dispute Act. All relevant material must be disclosed ex officio and voluntarily by the individual party. A party may also request additional relevant and specific documents or other evidence to be disclosed, by way of document requests. Such requests may be put forward at any time during the process.

To evaluate the sustainability of a claim, a party may request access to evidence before litigation is initiated and formally brought to the court. Evidence may only be secured if it can be of significance in the dispute, and there is a clear risk that the evidence will be lost or considerably weakened, or there are other reasons why it is particularly important to obtain access to the evidence before legal proceedings. In any instance, the requesting party will have to cover the costs connected to the disclosure in the first hand, although that party may later on include the costs in the final cost submission, if the matter goes to court.

Communication between certain professionals (eg, attorneys, medical doctors and priests) and a party is privileged and may not be disclosed to the court, unless the privilege is waived by the party concerned. Also, documents to and from privileged professionals may be withheld and not disclosed.

It is worth noting that, if the privilege is waived, all relevant communication and information must be disclosed, including communication and information that may be assumed to be contrary to the interests of the party concerned.

Evidence may be withheld by a party, partly or in full, if the evidence includes trade or business secrets. If the counterparty maintains that evidence should be submitted all the same, the court must decide on its admissibility. A confidentiality clause will, in itself, not be considered decisive, or even relevant, in such a connection.

The party claiming confidentiality or privilege will bear a burden of proof when the facts are not clear, if that is a result of the party’s denial to submit evidence based on privilege or confidentiality. The court may also decide on a full disclosure within a closed courtroom during the oral hearing, to prevent third parties from receiving the information.

Witnesses will submit oral statements, directly in the court. However, if the witness appears in court, this may be preceded by a written statement, although not in the form of a witness deposition. The appeal courts are on the edge of using recordings and transcripts from the witness statements in the court of first instance. In the Supreme Court, parties and witnesses must submit written statements, if that is relevant for the issues at hand. Witnesses are subject to cross-examination.

Expert evidence is permitted. Experts may be appointed by the court or by the parties, or both. Regularly, the expert presents a written report before the oral hearing, and comment orally on this in court. Experts shall perform their duties conscientiously and to the best of their convictions, and, if appointed by the court, without any bias of attachment to any of the sides of the matter.

The procedure for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments depends on the country in which the judgment was rendered and the legal basis on which recognition may be sought. A foreign judgment may be recognised and enforced in Norway only where there is a basis for doing so in statute or under an applicable convention.

Norway is a party to the Lugano Convention, under which judgments from the other contracting states are to be recognised and enforced without any review of the merits; enforcement may be refused only on narrowly defined procedural grounds. As regards the United Kingdom, a separate convention on the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of civil judgments applies and will cover most cases.

Where no basis exists under a convention, proceedings must in principle be brought afresh before the Norwegian courts, which will then be free to determine the case independently. The foreign judgment may nevertheless be relevant as evidence of the claim, and may carry weight in the assessment.

Where recognition and enforcement are sought, provided there is a convention basis for doing so, a copy of the foreign judgment must be produced together with a certified translation and confirmation that the judgment is final and binding. The judgment is then forwarded to the enforcement authorities. If the defendant raises objections to enforcement, those objections must be determined by the ordinary courts, with the district court acting as the court of first instance.

Norway is a party to the 1958 New York Convention, under which arbitral awards from more than 160 countries are recognised. A copy of the award and a translation must be produced.

As a rule of thumb, it is reasonable to expect several months to elapse from when enforcement is requested until performance, although the timeframe may vary significantly, depending on the nature and scope of the matter, and whether the defendant is accessible.

A party may resist enforcement of a foreign judgment only on very limited grounds, including that:

• recognition or enforcement would be contrary to Norwegian public policy;
• the defendant was not given a real opportunity to be heard; or
• the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under the relevant convention.

Enforcement may also be resisted on the grounds that the judgment is not final and binding, or that it is irreconcilable with an earlier final judgment between the same parties. Norwegian courts may not review the merits of the judgment, including the assessment of the evidence or the application of law.

Recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused only on very limited grounds, such as:

• invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• public policy;
• lack of due process;
• the award dealing with matters not falling within the scope of the arbitration clause; or
• irregularities in the composition of the arbitral tribunal.

Norwegian courts may not review the merits of the award.

A common feature of both foreign judgments and arbitral awards is that the threshold for refusing enforcement is high. Any challenge must be based on formal, procedural or public policy grounds. Disagreement with the outcome, errors of law or errors of fact are not grounds for refusal.

At present, the use of artificial intelligence is not subject to any separate, specific regulation under Norwegian law, either generally or specifically in the field of dispute resolution. A new Norwegian AI Act has been proposed and is expected to enter into force during 2026, but the draft legislation does not contain any specific rules on the use of AI in dispute resolution. The closest thing to more specific regulation at present is the Norwegian Bar Association’s guidance on the safe use of AI in legal practice.

Artificial intelligence is having a tangible impact on dispute resolution in Norway. Many Norwegian law firms are integrating AI to streamline routine tasks, analyse large volumes of documents and assist in document preparation before hearings and negotiations. At the same time, its use raises important ethical and legal concerns, particularly in relation to confidentiality, quality control and procedural proportionality. There have also been examples of self-represented parties using AI to generate disproportionately lengthy pleadings and document bundles, which may in turn raise questions as to the assessment of legal costs.

Norwegian courts have incorporated the use of AI to improve efficiency, particularly for information retrieval, summaries, timelines and draft preparation. Its use is currently limited to support functions for judges and court staff, and does not extend to independent decision-making.

The use of AI in dispute resolution in Norway is expected to increase significantly in the coming years. Norway has a strong policy focus on AI across both the public and private sectors, and law firms and courts are already beginning to adopt AI tools to improve efficiency. The overall direction is clearly towards broader use, although this will likely be accompanied by closer attention to confidentiality, quality control and regulatory compliance.