Arbitration is frequently used among professional parties in Norway, and is often the preferred dispute resolution method. For example, it is the prevailing dispute resolution method in the reinsurance market and within the M&A sector in Norway, and is also generally preferred by parties in other large commercial agreements.

The three main reasons parties choose to have disputes resolved by arbitration in Norway are:

• the potential for a quicker dispute resolution process compared to the process offered by the ordinary Norwegian courts;
• the possibility to influence the composition of the arbitral tribunal; and
• the potential for a confidential process.

Domestic parties most frequently rely on ad hoc arbitration as prescribed by the Norwegian Arbitration Act of 14 May 2004 No 25 (the “Arbitration Act”) and less so on institutional arbitration proceedings, which in Norway are offered by the Oslo Chamber of Commerce (OCC) and the Nordic Offshore & Maritime Arbitration Association (NOMA), for example.

International arbitration through foreign arbitration institutes is not that commonly agreed between purely domestic parties. However, Swedish or Danish arbitrators are occasionally involved in Norwegian matters and vice versa, due to the similarities between the legal systems in the Scandinavian countries.

In matters where either of the parties is located outside Norway, there is a tendency for parties to resort to the use of international arbitration through one of the recognised arbitration institutes in Europe – for example, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce/Swedish Arbitration Association (SCC/SAA) in Stockholm or the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Paris.

The reinsurance industry is seeing an increase in the number of disputes referred to arbitration. As reinsurance is an international industry, this is leading to an increase in the number of international arbitration proceedings. A possible explanation for this trend is the tightening up of the insurance market, which has raised new and previously unresolved legal questions.

Furthermore, there has been a notable rise in the number of post-M&A disputes being referred to arbitration. What these reinsurance and post-M&A disputes have in common is the frequent involvement of international elements.

The general impression is that international disputes are on the rise in Europe due to, among other things, market disturbances and the war in Ukraine leading to disturbed supply chains and sanctions, affecting a number of industries.

The Arbitration Act is based on ad hoc arbitration, and many international arbitrations are therefore not resolved under the auspices of a Norwegian arbitration institution.

Those international arbitrations that use an arbitration institution typically do so through the OCC Institute. An alternative to the OCC Institute is the NOMA, which was established in 2017 and has seen a recent surge in the resolution of disputes.

Although the majority of disputes are typically resolved through ad hoc arbitration, there is a growing trend to utilise the templates and rules provided by arbitration institutes as the foundation for the arbitration process. The rules of NOMA, in particular, are frequently employed. As a result, the distinction between ad hoc and institutional arbitration is becoming less significant.

The national courts of Norway have no courts designated to hear disputes related to arbitration, whether international or domestic.

Where the Arbitration Act grants competence to the ordinary courts (eg, if the parties are unable to agree on an arbitral tribunal), the courts that would have been competent in the absence of an arbitration agreement will have competence to decide on a specific matter. If no specific Norwegian court would have had competence in the absence of an arbitration agreement, the Oslo District Court will have competence to decide on the matter.

The Norwegian Arbitration Act of 14 May 2004 No 25 governs both domestic and international arbitration conducted in Norway. It is structurally and in content based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, but there are some differences, partly due to the fact that the Arbitration Act governs both domestic and international arbitration proceedings.

Two key areas in which the Arbitration Act differs from the UNCITRAL Model Law relate to the requirements of the arbitration agreement, and the confidentiality of proceedings.

In regard to the arbitration agreement, it should be noted that the Arbitration Act does not require an arbitration agreement to be in writing. This may raise certain challenges if an award from a Norwegian arbitral tribunal based on an oral arbitration agreement is to be enforced in a country that requires arbitration agreements to be in writing.

In regard to the confidentiality of the proceedings, the Arbitration Act states that arbitration proceedings and any resulting decisions and awards are not confidential unless the parties agree otherwise for the specific dispute. Consequently, an agreement regarding confidentiality must be entered into after the dispute has arisen.

There have been no significant changes to the Arbitration Act in the past year and there is no pending legislation that may change the arbitration landscape in Norway in the near future.

There are no requirements regarding the form of the arbitration agreement pursuant to the Arbitration Act. On the other hand, the courts in Norway have been somewhat restrictive in determining that the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement; see 3.3 National Courts’ Approach.       

Under Section 10 of the Arbitration Act, the enforceability of the arbitration agreement depends upon whether one of the parties is a consumer. An arbitration agreement is not binding for a consumer if it was entered into prior to the dispute.

It follows from Section 9 of the Arbitration Act that only legal matters that are subject to the parties’ unrestricted right of disposition may be determined by arbitration. In general, the parties’ autonomy and the right of disposition follow the lines of what parties may agree upon in a contract. A matter relating to children’s rights is a typical example of a matter that cannot be referred to arbitration between private parties.

The question of whether the parties have an unrestricted right of disposition can sometimes be subject to doubt, and as such the arbitrability of a legal matter must be decided on a case-by-case basis. For instance, there is an argument in legal theory that a dispute between a limited liability company and one of its shareholders regarding the validity of a General Assembly decision is not arbitrable.

Another example of a matter not subject to the parties’ right of disposition is the validity of private rights that have been achieved by public decision, such as patents or trade marks. Furthermore, Chapter 17 of the Working Environment Act contains provisions for civil procedure that preclude labour matters from arbitration. The only exception made is for cases brought by or against the highest ranking officer of a company.

Matters of competition law are not necessarily subject to the parties’ unrestricted right of disposition. However, it follows from Section 10 of the Arbitration Act that matters concerning the private law effects of competition law are arbitrable.

Pursuant to Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, it is the arbitral tribunal that decides whether a case is arbitrable. Nonetheless, a decision as to whether the tribunal is competent to hear the case may be brought before the national courts within a month. Furthermore, pursuant to Sections 43 and 44 of the Arbitration Act, a ruling by the tribunal may be held invalid by the national courts on the grounds that the case was not arbitrable.

In terms of determining which country’s law governs the arbitration agreement, the courts are bound by the parties’ choice of law. The Arbitration Act is based on the principle of separability and therefore the arbitration agreement may be governed by a choice of law other than the law governing the substantive contract. Under Section 31 of the Arbitration Act, a reference to the laws of a state is presumed to be a reference to the substantive laws of that state and not the state’s conflict of law rules.

In determining whether the national courts are precluded from hearing a case because of an arbitration clause, the courts apply Norwegian procedural law as a main rule. However, the courts have taken into consideration whether the solution that follows from Norwegian law harmonises with the laws of the state governing the arbitration agreement. In particular, consideration is made to the law governing the arbitration agreement when determining the arbitrability of a matter and the validity of arbitration clauses.

Case law dictates that the evaluation of whether the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement must be restrictive. The Norwegian Supreme Court bases its reasoning on Article 6 No 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which requires that a waiver of the right to access a court must be voluntary and informed. However, if it can be established that the parties have agreed to arbitrate a matter and arbitration proceedings are initiated, the courts are required to dismiss a case brought before them unless they find it clear that the arbitration agreement is invalid or, owing to other reasons, cannot be carried out.

According to Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, the defendant must request dismissal no later than when they address the merits of the case if the plaintiff has initiated a lawsuit in the regular courts for matters covered by an arbitration agreement. Failure to request dismissal in a timely manner will result in the regular court proceeding with the case. The Norwegian Supreme Court has applied a strict interpretation of Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, highlighting the importance of the defendant promptly seeking dismissal in the defence reply.

Notwithstanding the strict evaluation of whether an arbitration agreement has been entered into, arbitration agreements are only exceptionally held invalid. This is due to the strict criteria for voiding agreements in Norwegian contract law.

It follows from Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, in which the rule of separability is enshrined, that the validity of an arbitral clause is not dependent on the validity of the contract as such. Therefore, the arbitral tribunal maintains its competence even if it holds the contract invalid.

In accordance with Section 13 of the Arbitration Act, there are no limits on the parties’ autonomy to select arbitrators. The parties are free to stipulate specific requirements for the tribunal in the arbitration agreement.

In accordance with Section 13 (1) of the Arbitration Act, the arbitrators must be impartial and independent from the parties and qualified for the task. However, these are not mandatory requirements and the parties are free to agree otherwise.

Pursuant to Section 13 of the Arbitration Act, the starting point is that the parties will jointly appoint the arbitrators.

If the arbitral tribunal will comprise three arbitrators and the parties fail to agree on the composition of the tribunal, each party will appoint one arbitrator. These two arbitrators will then jointly appoint the third arbitrator to be the presiding arbitrator.

If the arbitral tribunal cannot be established pursuant to the procedure outlined above, each of the parties may request that the ordinary court having jurisdiction decides on the appointment(s). The decision on appointment(s) passed by the ordinary court is not subject to any appeal.

The ordinary court(s) can only intervene in the arbitrator selection process if such intervention is requested by one of the parties and authorised pursuant to the Arbitration Act.

As stated in 4.2 Default Procedures, in some cases a party may request that the ordinary court appoints the arbitrators. In certain cases, a party may also request that the ordinary court rules on whether there are grounds for requesting an appointed arbitrator to step down from the tribunal due to objections raised; see Section 15, paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Act. In such cases, the decision made by the ordinary court is not subject to appeal.

In accordance with Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, an arbitrator may only be challenged if there are circumstances that give rise to justifiable doubts about their impartiality or independence, or if they do not possess the qualifications agreed between the parties in the arbitration agreement.

An arbitrator is obliged to disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to such justifiable doubts from the time when they are approached in respect of their possible appointment as an arbitrator. The same obligation will be in place throughout the arbitration proceedings in that the arbitrator is always under a duty to convey such information to the parties.

Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, a challenge against an arbitrator will state the factual reasons for the challenge and will be submitted in writing to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days after the party has become aware of both the appointment of the arbitrator and the circumstances on which the challenge is based. Unless the challenged arbitrator voluntarily withdraws from their appointment or the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitral tribunal will reach a decision on whether or not there is a basis for the challenge.

If a challenge is unsuccessful, the challenging party may bring this issue to the ordinary court, unless the parties have agreed to another procedure.

Pursuant to Section 13 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitrators are required to be impartial and independent of the parties, and to be qualified for the role as arbitrator. As mentioned in 4.1 Limits on Selection, however, this is not a mandatory requirement and the parties are free to agree otherwise.

The Arbitration Act does not include a definition of “impartial and independent”. This must be subject to a concrete assessment in the individual case. The Courts of Justice Act applies for all ordinary courts, and Section 108 thereof sets out some provisions regarding legal capacity for judges in the ordinary courts, which can provide some guidance for the assessment, even though these provisions are not directly applicable. In a recent judgment (HR-2025-921-A) the Supreme Court referred to the Courts of Justice Act Sections 106–108 being of importance for the interpretation of the Arbitration Act. Further, the Supreme Court emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6, paragraph 1 is applicable, unless the parties “in an unequivocal manner” have waived their rights thereunder. The “Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration” from the International Bar Association may also provide some guidance for resolving whether an arbitrator is “impartial and independent”.

The requirement regarding the arbitrators’ qualifications must also be assessed specifically in each case, based on the parties’ agreement and the specific facts. If the parties have agreed on any specific requirements regarding experience or knowledge, this would of course be relevant (if not decisive) in the assessment.

As stated in 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators, a candidate approached for possible appointment as an arbitrator, as well as an appointed arbitrator, is under a constant duty to disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence.

Challenges to the tribunal’s jurisdiction, including any objections as to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, are decided by the arbitral tribunal in accordance with Section 18 of the Arbitration Act. The arbitral tribunal may rule on an objection as to whether it has jurisdiction over the case either during the arbitration proceedings or in the arbitral award determining the dispute.

As a general rule, if a party wishes to raise the objection that the arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdiction over the case or the claim, such objection must be raised no later than in the parties’ submission of the first statement to the merits of the case.

If the arbitral tribunal rules during the arbitration proceedings that it has jurisdiction, any party may – within one month of having received such ruling – bring the issue before the ordinary courts, which will determine such issue by way of an interlocutory order; see Section 18, paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Act.

As stated in 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction, the ordinary courts can determine whether an arbitration panel has jurisdiction – this is if a party brings the issue before the ordinary courts, pursuant to Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, after a decision has been passed by the arbitral tribunal ruling that it has jurisdiction.

In accordance with Section 43, paragraph 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, the ordinary courts may also set aside an arbitral award if such award is outside the scope of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.

The party must bring a legal action for setting aside the arbitral award before the ordinary courts within three months after receiving the arbitral award. It is also a condition that the courts may not have already decided on the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction in the particular case, pursuant to Section 18 of the Arbitration Act, at an earlier phase of the arbitration proceedings.

If the arbitral award falls outside the scope of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the ordinary courts may also refuse to recognise or enforce the award, in accordance with Section 46 of the Arbitration Act.

As stated in 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction, a party must bring the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal before the ordinary courts within one month after having received a ruling from the tribunal deciding that the tribunal has jurisdiction.

If the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal is not challenged during the arbitration procedure, the parties can bring a legal action for setting aside the arbitral award before the ordinary courts within three months of the party receiving the arbitral award; see 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention.

As a general rule, in the judicial review, the ordinary courts will make a full and independent assessment of the relevant facts and of the applicable legal sources, based on the grounds invoked by the parties.

If a party commences court proceedings in the ordinary courts in breach of an arbitration agreement before the arbitration proceedings are initiated, the ordinary courts are obliged to dismiss the case pursuant to Section 7 of the Arbitration Act, provided that the other party requests dismissal no later than when addressing the merits of the case.

As stated in 3.3 National Courts’ Approach, the courts are required to dismiss a case brought before them where arbitration proceedings have already been initiated, unless the arbitration agreement is found to be invalid, or due to other reasons cannot be carried out.

Case law dictates that the evaluation of whether the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement must be restrictive. However, if the courts find that the parties have entered into an arbitration agreement, such agreements are held invalid in exceptional cases only. This is due to Norwegian contract law’s generally strict criteria to finding contract provisions void.

As stated in 13.5 Binding of Third Parties, the general principle under Norwegian law is that a contract is only binding for the parties of the contract. Therefore, the main rule is that a third party is not bound by an arbitration agreement or an award issued pursuant to this agreement when said third party has not entered into the agreement or otherwise has not accepted to be bound by the agreement.

Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, order any party to take such interim measures as the tribunal may consider necessary based on the subject matter of the dispute, pursuant to Section 19 of the Arbitration Act.

An interim relief ordered by the arbitral tribunal is binding upon the parties but is not enforceable according to Norwegian law, as provisions for this are not contained in the Norwegian Enforcement Act of 26 June 1992 No 86, nor in Chapter 10 of the Arbitration Act. In practice, most parties will adhere to an arbitral tribunal’s order for interim relief to show respect for the authority of the arbitral tribunal.

The parties may pursue a claim for interim relief in the ordinary Norwegian courts, pursuant to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Interim relief may also be sought in foreign-seated arbitrations; see Section 1, paragraph 2 of the Arbitration Act. The Norwegian rules on interim measures give the courts quite a lot of flexibility to grant arrests, or to issue orders preventing a party from certain actions or prescribing a party to perform certain actions.

The Arbitration Act does not contain any provisions regarding emergency arbitrators; this depends on the parties’ agreement. Emergency arbitrators are not common in Norwegian arbitrations.

According to Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal may order the parties to provide security for the costs of the arbitral tribunal, unless the parties and the arbitral tribunal have agreed otherwise. The arbitral tribunal may terminate the arbitration proceedings if such security is not provided. If a party fails to provide security as ordered, the other party may provide the security in full or bring the dispute before the ordinary courts, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Chapter 6 of the Arbitration Act (Sections 20–30) sets out detailed provisions governing the procedure of the arbitration. In the absence of agreement between the parties, the provisions in Chapter 6 will apply. It should also be noted that it is explicitly stated in some of the provisions in Chapter 6 that these may not be (fully or partly) exempted by agreement. The arbitration agreement between the parties may state that arbitration proceedings are to be filed at a specific institution, in which case, the rules of the institution will govern the procedure of the arbitration and supplement the provisions of the Arbitration Act, and possibly overrule exemption from certain provisions.

Section 22 provides for the regulation of the place (legal venue) for arbitration, which is decided by the tribunal if not agreed by the parties. Normally, the legal venue and choice of law are agreed upon in the arbitration clause under the contract subject to dispute.

Unless otherwise agreed, the arbitration commences when a written request for arbitration is received by the respondent; see Section 23. The Arbitration Act does not set any explicit requirements for the content of the notice; a letter clearly notifying that arbitration is requested for a specific dispute is sufficient.

Regarding the language for the arbitration (communication from the tribunal, pleadings, hearing and judgment), Section 24 states that this is decided by the tribunal, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Section 24 further states that the tribunal can require written evidence to be translated into the agreed language for the arbitration.

Section 25 sets the requirements for the filing of a statement of claim from the claimant and for the respondent for filing the reply. Pursuant to the last paragraph of Section 25, the parties have wide rights to bring new claims, to expand the contention in respect of existing claims, and to submit new grounds for the contention and new evidence, unless they have agreed otherwise.

Section 27 provides for the regulation of the consequences of the claimant’s failure to submit a statement of claim and the respondent’s failure to file a reply according to Section 25, absence from the hearing, etc. Unless otherwise agreed, the tribunal will have specific powers under Section 27 to pass decisions depending on the non-fulfilment of requirements. Specifically, if the claimant fails to provide a statement of claim, the arbitral tribunal will dismiss the case. If the respondent fails to file a reply, the case will continue and the failure will not be construed as an acceptance of the claims. If a party is absent from the hearings without reasonable grounds, the tribunal can continue the case and hand down its verdict based on the facts that have been presented.

Section 26 of the Arbitration Act relates to the question of whether hearings will be conducted. Unless the parties have agreed otherwise, the tribunal will decide whether an oral hearing will be conducted; however, a party may always request an oral hearing.

See 7.1 Governing Rules regarding the procedural steps. As stated, most of the provisions set out in Chapter 6 of the Arbitration Act are non-mandatory, but the principle of equal treatment must be complied with. It is also worth noting that Section 30 contains a provision allowing assistance from other courts to obtain witness statements, take evidence, etc. If the parties have not agreed to authorise the tribunal to pass legally binding decisions on document requests, there is no basis under the Arbitration Act to force a party to disclose documents, in which case, there might be a need to seek assistance from the ordinary courts to resolve this.

Pursuant to Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the arbitral tribunal will treat each party equally at all stages of the arbitration proceedings, and each party will be given full opportunity to present its case. The principle of equal treatment has general bearing and applies for all steps under the proceedings; there is no exemption from this.

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, the tribunal is given discretionary power to determine how the arbitration proceedings will be conducted. The exercise of this discretion will be subject to the limitations set out in the agreement between the parties and under the Arbitration Act.

There are no statutory provisions in the Arbitration Act outlining particular qualifications or other requirements for legal representatives in arbitration proceedings. A party can decide not to appoint legal counsel – although in general this is not recommended.

However, there are legal requirements for representatives acting on behalf of a client and before the regular courts in Norway, as set out in the Norwegian Act relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes (the “Dispute Act”) – see Section 3-3. The main rule is that the legal representative must be a qualified lawyer to appear in the national courts.

The general rule on evidence is set out in Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, which states that the parties are responsible for substantiating the case and are entitled to present such evidence as they wish.

Usually, the witnesses meet directly before the arbitral tribunal and are available for cross-examination. If requested by a party or the arbitral tribunal, an expert who has submitted a written report is obliged to attend the oral hearing, where the parties have the opportunity to ask questions and to present expert witnesses to testify on the points at issue; see Section 29 of the Arbitration Act.

The arbitral tribunal – or a party with the consent of the arbitral tribunal – may also ask the domestic courts to take testimony from the parties or witnesses and to record other evidence. The arbitrators are entitled to be present and to ask questions during the taking of evidence. In such instances, the relevant party or witness is obliged to meet before the court, subject to the provisions in the Dispute Act.

The Arbitration Act does not contain any rules on discovery, disclosure or privilege.

See 8.1 Collection and Submission of Evidence.

The rules of evidence in the Arbitration Act are less detailed than the rules of evidence in the Dispute Act, which apply in domestic matters. However, the parties are free to agree on more specific rules of evidence in the specific matter.

As mentioned in 7.2 Procedural Steps, the Arbitration Act does not contain any provisions that authorise the arbitral tribunal to force a party to disclose documents, and the same will apply relating to the attendance of witnesses.

However, as mentioned in 8.1 Collection and Submission of Evidence, the arbitrators may ask the ordinary courts for assistance to hear statements from the parties or witnesses, or to record other evidence. In such instances, the more detailed rules in the Dispute Act will apply to the hearing of the evidence, including the rules that oblige everyone (ie, both the parties and third parties) to provide any relevant information and documentation available to them.

As mentioned in 2.1 Governing Law, Section 5 of the Arbitration Act sets out that the arbitration proceedings and any resulting awards are not confidential, unless the parties agree otherwise for the specific dispute. Consequently, an agreement regarding confidentiality must be entered into after the dispute has arisen. In such instances, the parties may agree that the whole or parts of the proceedings will be subject to confidentiality.

If the parties have agreed on confidentiality, the main rule is that the information cannot be disclosed in subsequent proceedings. However, there is an important exemption where a party is obliged by law to present the relevant documentation or information. This will, as a main rule, be the case in proceedings before the regular courts if the information is considered to constitute evidence in the proceedings; see Section 21-5 of the Dispute Act, which sets out that “[a]ll persons have a duty to testify about factual circumstances and to grant access to objects etc. that may constitute evidence in legal proceedings, subject to the limitations in the rules on prohibited and exempted evidence in Chapter 22 and other provisions on evidence in this Act”.

This provision will also apply to subsequent arbitration proceedings in instances where the arbitrators seek assistance from the courts to obtain evidence, as mentioned in 8.3 Powers of Compulsion.

The arbitral award will be made in writing and signed by all arbitrators; see Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. In arbitration proceedings with more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority of the members of the arbitral tribunal will suffice, provided that the reason for any omitted signature is stated in the award.

Furthermore, the award must state the reasons on which it is based, unless it is an award on agreed terms pursuant to Section 35, which sets out that the arbitral tribunal will, at the parties’ request, record the settlement in an award on agreed terms, unless the court has reason to object to it, and the parties settle the dispute. The award must also state whether it is unanimous. If it is not unanimous, the award must state who is in dissent and to which issues the dissent relates.

The award must also state its date and the place of arbitration.

The Arbitration Act does not contain any provisions on time limits for the delivery of the award.

There are no general limitations by law on the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may award, but the remedy awarded must fall within the scope of the claims of the parties.

At the request of a party, the arbitral tribunal will allocate the costs of the arbitral tribunal between the parties as it sees fit; see Section 40 of the Arbitration Act. This includes ordering one of the parties to pay all or part of the costs of the other party. This will typically be relevant if one of the parties is successful in the claim, fully or in the main.

The allocation of costs by the arbitral tribunal is final and will be included in the award or in the order terminating the case.

The parties may also agree between them how the costs will be allocated – that is, that the parties will carry their own costs regardless of the outcome of the case.

Arbitral awards are not subject to appeal. However, an action for invalidity may be brought before the ordinary courts on the grounds set out in Section 43 of the Arbitration Act, which explains that an award may only be set aside by the courts if:

• one of the parties to the arbitration agreement lacked legal capacity, or the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law to which the parties have agreed to subject it or, failing such agreement, under Norwegian law;
• the party bringing the action to set aside the arbitral award was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was not given an opportunity to present their views on the case;
• the award falls outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal was incorrect; or
• the arbitration procedure was contrary to the law or the agreement of the parties, and it is likely that this has had an impact on the decision.

If the issue of the validity of an award has been brought before the ordinary courts, the court will also set aside the award on its own initiative if:

• the dispute cannot be settled by arbitration under Norwegian law; or
• the award is considered to be contrary to public policy (ordre public).

If the grounds for invalidity affect only parts of the award, only such parts will be deemed invalid.

An action to set aside an award must be brought within three months after the award was received by the party; see Section 44 of the Arbitration Act.

If an action for invalidity has been brought and there are grounds for setting aside the award, the court may, at the request of a party, adjourn the action to set aside and refer the case back to the arbitral tribunal to continue the proceedings and make a new award, if this may obviate the grounds for setting aside.

When an award is set aside, the arbitration agreement will again become effective unless otherwise agreed between the parties or implied by the judgment setting aside the award.

Under Norwegian law, the parties may not agree to exclude or expand the scope of appeal or challenge, as set out in 11.1 Grounds for Appeal.

The court may only set aside the case as invalid based on the grounds detailed in 11.1 Grounds for Appeal.

Norway is party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, with the following reservations:

• Norway will apply the convention only to the recognition and enforcement of awards made in the territory of one of the contracting states; and
• Norway will not apply the convention to disputes where the subject matter of the proceedings is immovable property situated in Norway, or a right in or to such property.

The matters of recognition and enforcement of awards are regulated in Chapter 10 of the Arbitration Act (Sections 45 and 46). The parties cannot derogate from the applicability of these rules by agreement; see Sections 2, 45 and 46.

It is set out in Section 46 that the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may only be refused if:

• one of the parties to the arbitration agreement lacked legal capacity, or the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law to which the parties have agreed to subject it or, failing such agreement, under the law of the country where the award was made;
• the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was not given an opportunity to present their views on the case;
• the award falls outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal;
• the composition of the arbitral tribunal was unlawful;
• the arbitration procedure was contrary to the law of the place of arbitration or the agreement of the parties, and it is likely that this has had an impact on the decision; or
• the award is not yet binding on the parties, or it has been permanently or temporarily set aside by a court at the place of arbitration or by a court of the country under the law of which the merits of the dispute have been determined.

The court will refuse recognition and enforcement of an award of its own accord if:

• the dispute could not be determined by arbitration under Norwegian law; or
• recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy (ordre public).

If the reason for refusing recognition or enforcement affects only part of the award, the court will only refuse recognition or enforcement of such part.

Enforcement will take place pursuant to the provisions of the Enforcement Act, except as provided by Chapter 10 of the Arbitration Act; see Section 45.

The enforcement process is initiated by the claimant filing a petition for enforcement with the execution and enforcement commissioner. The application must include the information set out in Section 5-2 of the Enforcement Act. If the basis for enforcement is a foreign arbitral award, the claimant must also attach documentation to show that the award is enforceable in the relevant foreign jurisdiction. Recognition and enforcement of an award is dependent on a party providing the original award or a certified copy thereof. If the award is not made in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish or English, the party must also provide a certified translation thereof. The court can require documentary proof of the existence of an agreement or other basis for arbitration; see Section 45 of the Arbitration Act.

The execution and enforcement commissioner will, on their own initiative, ensure that they are competent to handle the case, that the parties have the capacity to sue and be sued, and that there is a valid basis for enforcement. Besides this, the parties are responsible for clarifying and presenting the relevant facts and documentation that may affect the decision of the execution and enforcement commissioner in the matter; see Section 5-3 of the Enforcement Act.

The New York Convention is implemented in Norwegian law via the Arbitration Act.

Pursuant to the Arbitration Act, arbitral awards are recognised and enforceable under Norwegian law subject to exhaustively listed exemptions, regardless of the country in which they were made; see 12.2 Enforcement Procedure.

The Arbitration Act does not contain provisions allowing class action arbitration or group arbitration. In general, the agreement between the parties will be the determining factor. It is possible to consolidate claims between the same parties or to include more parties in the same arbitration process, if agreed upon.

Norwegian qualified lawyers acting as legal counsel in arbitration must act in accordance with the ethical codes generally applicable to lawyers. These ethical rules are set out in Chapter 12 of the Regulations for Advocates.

There are no general rules or restrictions on third-party funding in the Arbitration Act, nor under Norwegian law. It is not common in Norway for third parties to fund litigation in return for a share of the possible outcome of the case. That being said, a party to an arbitration is free to agree to such funding and sharing of the potential outcome.

There is no basis under the Arbitration Act for the tribunal to decide that separate arbitration proceedings will be consolidated into one case. There are consolidation rules under the Dispute Act but these will not apply under the Arbitration Act, unless agreed by the parties. Therefore, a consolidation will require an agreement between all the parties involved – that is, one agreement that covers all claims and parties subject to the consolidated disputes.

As stated in 7.1 Governing Rules, Section 25, last paragraph of the Arbitration Act provides for a wide right to bring new claims into the arbitration, but this presupposes that the parties and the claims are initially subject to the same arbitration proceeding. Article 25 does not give a basis upon which the case can be expanded to new parties.

The general principle under Norwegian law (which is in line with the doctrine of privity) is that a contract cannot confer rights nor impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract; correspondingly, only parties to the contract are able to sue or seek enforcement of their rights or claim for damages as such. Therefore, a third party is not bound by an arbitration agreement or an award issued pursuant to this agreement, provided that this third party has not signed the agreement nor otherwise accepted to be bound by it.

In principle, in a case of succession (change of control of a legal person or assignment of contractual obligations), a third party may also succeed in an arbitration clause being agreed by the predecessor. However, this is also based on contractual commitment.

If it is disputed whether or not a third party is a party to an arbitration agreement, the matter may be referred to the regular court for settlement.