Civil litigation in Norway is governed by the Dispute Act of 2005. The Norwegian legal system is based on a civil law tradition where the main sources of law are statutes and the official preparatory works to statutes. However, case law from the Norwegian Supreme Court is also an important source of law.

In general, civil proceedings are based on an adversarial model, although with some inquisitorial elements depending on the nature of the case.

The legal process is conducted through a combination of written submissions and oral arguments. During the preparation of the case, the parties submit one or several written pleadings to the court. The case is normally decided after a hearing where all the evidence is presented, both documentary evidence and witnesses. Civil cases may also be decided based on a combination of written submissions and oral arguments, or solely on written submissions, but this is less common.

The Norwegian court system consists of the ordinary courts as well as some special courts and court-like bodies. The ordinary courts of Norway are of general jurisdiction and consist of three levels:

• the District Courts;
• the Courts of Appeal; and
• the Supreme Court.

Norway does not have its own administrative courts. Those affected by an administrative decision can bring the decision before the ordinary courts for a review of the decision's validity. There are also no small claims courts in Norway. Cases regarding small claims are heard by the ordinary courts, but the procedure is slightly different, with the aim of reducing legal costs.

Some civil matters are reserved for special courts, including certain cases regarding property rights, which are heard by The Land Consolidation Courts. Decisions from these courts can be appealed to the ordinary Courts of Appeal. Cases regarding collective labour agreements are heard by the Labour Court. With a few exceptions, these decisions cannot be appealed.

Court-like bodies include:

• the National Insurance Court, which considers disputes over social security and pension; and
• the Finnmark Land Tribunal, which considers disputes regarding the rights to land and water in the Finnmark Region of Norway.

As a main rule, civil court proceedings in Norway are open to the public. Cases under the Children's Act and the Marriage Act and cases between spouses, cohabitants and divorced persons regarding the distribution of property are not open to the public, unless the court decides they should be, for special reasons. The same applies to matters concerning the review of coercive decisions in the health and social care sector. In addition to these exceptions, the court may decide that a hearing shall not be open to the public if this is required for the sake of privacy or proper case information, for example.

Court decisions in civil cases are available to the public. With a few exceptions, this is also true for final written submissions (the parties’ summary of the arguments), court hearing records, court mediation protocols and cost reports. Writs of summons, notices of defence and other written pleadings are not available to the public, but the parties may give access to the documents.

Only lawyers or authorised assistant lawyers may appear as legal representatives in Norwegian courts. A master's degree in law is required in order to obtain a lawyer's licence in Norway, in addition to having passed a mandatory course and having at least two years of relevant work experience involving civil court proceedings.

A foreign lawyer may act as counsel if the court finds no objections to this in view of the nature of the case and other circumstances.

Only lawyers who are entitled to appear before the Supreme Court can be engaged as counsel in cases that involve an oral hearing before the Supreme Court.

Litigation funding by a third party is not regulated by the Norwegian Dispute Act or other civil acts. It is permitted insofar as it does not violate any civil procedural provisions or principles. Third-party litigation funding is still in its infancy in Norway, but in recent years the concept has started moving towards becoming a more established dispute resolution tool.

In June 2023, the Norwegian Supreme Court issued a ruling that implies a limitation on third-party litigation funding (HR-2023-1034-A). The question was whether the provisions of the Dispute Act allow for third-party litigation funding in an opt-out class action lawsuit when the third party would have its costs and return covered through a reduction of the compensation awarded to the group members, if any. The Supreme Court concluded that the provisions of the Dispute Act do not allow for this and stated that it is a task for the legislature to assess whether changes should be made to the Dispute Act's rules on class action lawsuits. The lawsuit was thus rejected.

In principle, all types of lawsuits are available for third-party funding. However, as described in 2.1 Third-Party Litigation Funding, the Norwegian Supreme Court's decision in June 2023 (HR-2023-1034-A) implies a limitation on third-party funding in opt-out class action lawsuits.

Third-party funding is available for both the plaintiff and the defendant.

There is no maximum or minimum amount for third-party funding.

A third-party funder will normally fund the legal costs of the funded party (fees for counsel, costs of experts, court fees, etc). The agreement can also stipulate that the third party covers the legal costs incurred by the other party if the funded party is ordered to pay these.

The use of contingency fees is not regulated by the Dispute Act. However, the Norwegian Bar Association’s code of conduct states that a lawyer must not enter into an agreement with clients or others that he/she shall receive a fee on a percentage or share basis in relation to the result or object of the case, whether this concerns an amount of money or another form of remuneration. The provision does not prohibit “no cure no pay” agreements; it is only violated when a “no cure no pay” agreement is combined with a share-based fee.

There are no time limits by when a party to litigation should obtain third-party funding.

Before bringing an action, a party shall give notice in writing to the party against whom the action may be brought. The notice shall contain information about the claim and the grounds for the claim, and shall invite the opposing party to respond to the claim and the grounds for the claim.

The party who receives notice of a claim shall respond to the claim and the grounds for the claim within a reasonable time. If the claim is contested in whole or in part, the party shall specify the grounds upon which it is contested. If the party is of the opinion that they have a claim against the party who has given notice of claim, they shall, at the same time, give notice of the claim and the grounds for it, and invite the opposing party to respond.

A person who gives notice of claim or who contests a notified claim is also obliged to provide information about important documents or other evidence of which they are aware and of which they cannot expect the opposite party to be aware. This applies irrespective of whether such evidence supports the party's position or the position of the opposing party.

The parties shall investigate whether it is possible to reach an amicable settlement of the dispute before action is brought, and shall make a strong attempt at settlement, if necessary, through conciliation before a conciliation board, through non-judicial mediation or by bringing the dispute before a non-judicial dispute resolution board.

The steps described above are not procedural requirements, so the non-fulfilment of these obligations is not an obstacle to legal proceedings, although it may have an impact on the liability for legal costs.

Claims for money and other performances are subject to limitation periods in accordance with the provisions of the Act relating to the limitation period for claims.

The general limitation period is three years, but certain types of claims are subject to a shorter or longer limitation period: for instance, there is a longer limitation period for claims based on money loans. Special rules also apply to claims for damages that do not arise from a contract.

Generally, the limitation period runs from the date on which the creditor first has the right to demand performance. If the creditor has not asserted the claim because they lacked the necessary knowledge of the claim or the debtor, the period of limitation expires at the earliest one year after the date on which the creditor obtained or should have obtained such knowledge.

There are several ways in which the limitation period can be interrupted, such as when the debtor expressly in word or deed has acknowledged their debt to the creditor. Furthermore, and important practically, the limitation period is interrupted when the creditor submits a writ of summons.

Jurisdictional requirements are regulated by the Dispute Act and the Lugano Convention.

The Dispute Act states that the ordinary venue of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence. Undertakings have their ordinary venue at the place where the head office of the undertaking is located, according to registration. Foreign business undertakings that have a branch, agency or similar place of business in Norway have an ordinary venue at this place of business if the action relates to activities at that location.

The Dispute Act states that disputes in international matters may only be brought before the Norwegian courts if the facts of the case have a sufficiently strong connection to Norway. For instance, if a person or legal entity is not domiciled in Norway, a Norwegian court may still seize jurisdiction if the dispute concerns real property located in Norway. If the dispute falls within the scope of the Lugano Convention, the question of jurisdiction and legal venue is determined by the convention's provisions as lex specialis.

Norwegian courts will also accept jurisdiction of a case if the jurisdiction of the Norwegian court has been agreed by the parties. An agreement that broadens or limits the international jurisdiction of the Norwegian courts must be in writing. Any agreements on venues that fall within the scope of the Lugano Convention must be assessed according to Article 23 thereof.

A lawsuit is initiated by a writ of summons. This can be submitted both in writing and orally, although the latter is uncommon.

The writ of summons shall state:

• the name of the court;
• the names and addresses of the parties, their party representatives and their counsel;
• the claim that is being asserted and a prayer for relief, which states the outcome the claimant is requesting by way of judgment;

• the factual and legal grounds upon which the claim is based;
• the evidence that will be presented;
• the basis upon which the court has jurisdiction to hear the case if this may be doubtful; and
• the claimant's view on the further proceedings of the case, including any agreements that may be of relevance to the proceedings.

The writ of summons shall provide a basis for the parties and the court to hear the case in a sound manner. Claims, prayers for relief and the factual and legal grounds shall be stated in such a manner to enable the defendant to consider the claims and prepare the case. The claimant's argumentation shall not go further than necessary to satisfy these requirements. Furthermore, the writ of summons shall give the court a basis for assessing its jurisdiction and shall provide the necessary information to enable the writ of summons to be served and to contact the parties.

Some cases must be heard by the conciliation board before being brought to the ordinary courts. The requirements for an initial complaint to the conciliation board are almost identical as those described above. However, it is not uncommon for the complaint to be somewhat simpler and shorter than a writ of summons.

It is the responsibility of the court to serve the defendant with the writ of summons. This can be carried out in several ways. If the defendant is represented by a lawyer, the documents are usually served by means of electronic communication. The lawyer who receives the service must confirm receipt on behalf of their client as soon as possible, and at the latest within the deadline specified in the transmission. Service can also be done by ordinary post, either by regular letter with acknowledgement of receipt or by registered letter. Furthermore, if service as described above is not successful, the court may seek to serve the defendant through other means, such as a process server.

If the respondent is domiciled outside Norway, the manner of service will be governed by applicable international treaties. The most important convention is the Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (the Hague Convention 1965). Within the Nordic region, the agreement of 26 April 1974 between Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden applies. The agreement simplifies the procedure for sending letters of requests and contains rules on which languages can be used.

When a defendant is served the writ of summons, they are also ordered to submit their answer or statement of defence within a certain deadline.

A party shall be deemed to be unlawfully absent if they do not submit a response to the lawsuit within the deadline. The defendant may, by way of reinstatement, be permitted by the court to take the necessary procedural action and continue the action in the same position as before the omission.

The court shall reject the case if the claimant is unlawfully absent because they have not responded to the lawsuit, and the court does not grant reinstatement. It is a prerequisite for rejection that the defendant has been informed of the consequences.

The Norwegian legal system allows for class actions, both opt-in and opt-out.

A class action can only be brought if:

• several legal persons have claims or obligations for which the factual or legal basis is identical or substantially similar;
• the claims can be heard by a court with the same composition and principally in accordance with the same procedural rules;
• class procedure is the most appropriate method of hearing the claims; and
• it is possible to nominate a class representative.

Only persons who could have brought or joined an ordinary action before the Norwegian courts may be class members.

A class action may be brought by any person who fulfils the conditions for class membership if approval to bring the action is granted. Furthermore, a class action may be brought by organisations and associations, and by public bodies charged with promoting a specific interest, provided that the action falls within its purpose and normal scope.

The court shall decide whether to approve or reject the class action, as soon as possible. If the class action is approved, various practical and financial conditions must be described in the court's decision. Furthermore, the court shall ensure that the class action is made known to those who may join it.

Normally, the class action only includes those who are registered as class members. Persons who have claims that fall within the scope of the class action can register as class members (opt-in).

However, the Dispute Act also allows for class actions that do not require the registration of class members (opt-out). This is only possible if the claims:

• individually involve amounts or interests that are so small that it must be assumed that a considerable majority of them would not be brought as individual actions; and
• are not deemed to raise issues that need to be heard individually.

Persons who do not wish to participate in the class action may withdraw.

There is no general obligation to provide clients with a cost estimate of the potential litigation at the outset. However, according to the Norwegian Bar Association’s code of conduct, the client is entitled to be informed of how the lawyer has calculated their fee, and the fee must be in reasonable proportion to the assignment and the work carried out by the lawyer.

Furthermore, if the lawyer assumes that the costs will be disproportionately high in relation to the client's financial position or the interests to which the case relates, the lawyer must make the client aware of this in time.

In practice, of course, fee estimates and budgets are common.        

As legal proceedings take time, there is a risk that the defendant in the meantime will dispose of the subject matter of the case, and thus make it impossible or substantially more difficult to enforce the claim. There may also be a need to obtain a temporary arrangement between the parties during the dispute. To accommodate the claimant's need to ensure future enforcement or a temporary arrangement, the Norwegian legislation gives access to strike preliminary decisions before trial.

Pecuniary claims can be secured by a garnishee order/an arrest, while other claims may be secured by temporary precautionary measures. Upon a garnishee order, the debtor loses the right to dispose of the arrested assets to the disadvantage of the claimant. With a temporary injunction, the defendant shall usually omit, undertake or tolerate an act.

Before trial, a party can apply for early judgment for proven claims if there are grounds for provisional security, and if the damage or inconvenience caused to the defendant is not clearly disproportionate to the interest the plaintiff has in an injunction being decided.

When the District Court has to decide on an application for provisional security, an oral hearing is normally held.

At the same time as the court tries the application for provisional security, it can also hear the main claim if one of the parties demands it. A party can involve the main/primary claim for simultaneous adjudication if it is justifiable without further case preparation and will not delay the decision on the claim sought to be secured through a preliminary decision. This can happen without mediation in the Conciliation Board and will thus result in a quick court procedure. However, the court is quite free to refuse such simultaneous adjudication.

The procedural legislation sets out several conditions for the courts to be able to take a case into substantive discussion. These conditions are usually called procedural requirements/dispositive motions. If a procedural requirement is missing, the case must be dismissed.

The procedural requirements can be divided into general and special procedural conditions. “General” procedural requirements apply to all lawsuits that are not specifically excepted, while “special” procedural requirements only apply in specified case types or only between certain parties.

The general procedural requirements are as follows:

• both parties must have capacity to sue and be sued, and have procedural capacity;
• the case must fall under Norwegian judicial competence and be brought before a court that has substantive, territorial and functional competence;
• if there is no special statutory authority for otherwise, the subject of the lawsuit must be a legal claim, and the parties' connection to this and the relationship between the parties must be such that the plaintiff has a genuine need to obtain a judgment against the defendant (“legal interest”);

• the legal claim that constitutes the subject matter in dispute cannot already be settled by a final and enforceable judgment, nor can another case about the same legal claim be pending before the courts (litis pendens);
• anyone who has filed a lawsuit or declared a legal remedy must attend the court hearings specified – the case shall be rejected if the complainant fails to attend and there are no grounds to believe that they are lawfully absent; and
• there are also requirements regarding the content and form of complaints to the Conciliation Board, the writ of summons and legal remedy declarations.

Examples of special procedural requirements include time limits for lawsuits and foreign plaintiffs' duty to provide security for liability for legal costs.

Interested parties may join a lawsuit through the rules of third-party intervention, in a support action for a party in the case. The third party cannot put forward any independent claim but can provide evidence and argue in favour of the party they support.

Third-party intervention shall be permitted by a person who, by virtue of their own legal status, has a real interest in one of the parties succeeding with its actions, and by associations, foundations and public bodies charged with promoting specific interests in cases that fall within the purpose and normal scope of such organisations.

Furthermore, third-party intervention shall be declared in pleadings or at a court hearing before the case as such is ruled on. The declaration shall state the grounds for the intervention and shall be notified to the parties together with a time limit for contesting the intervention. If the intervention is contested, the issue of the right to intervene shall be determined by interlocutory order.

Interested parties that are not a plaintiff or defendant, or that can join the lawsuit through third-party intervention, can give written submissions.

The defendant may demand that a claimant who is not habitually resident in Norway shall provide security for their potential liability for costs that may incur during the proceedings before the current court. There are several exceptions to this rule.

If security is ordered by the court but not provided within the prescribed time limit set by the court, the case shall be rejected.

For cases of provisional security, the legal cost rules set out in Chapter 20 of the Dispute Act apply as a starting point for liability for legal costs (Section 32-2 of the Dispute Act, first sentence). However, there are some peculiarities for two more special situations. In Section 32-10 of the Dispute Act, first sentence, it is specified that the court can also impose liability for legal costs in cases that are decided without an oral hearing. Furthermore, if costs are imposed on the defendant in a case concerning arrest, such costs shall be included in the amount in respect of which arrest is taken. In both cases, it is a prerequisite that legal costs have been claimed.

The timeframe for a court to deal with an application varies depending on the judicial authority and the form of procedure the case will follow.

For proceedings before the Conciliation Board, the Conciliation Board will serve the complaint to the defendant if it proceeds with the case, together with an order to file a reply within a time limit, which shall normally be fixed at two weeks. After the reply is submitted, the preparation of the case is finished, and the Conciliation Board shall summon the parties to a meeting to hear the case. The meeting should take place within three months after the complaint is submitted.

For proceedings in the court of first instance, the court will set a time limit for the defendant to submit the reply to the writ of summons (both after the general procedure and after the small claim procedure), which is normally three weeks (Section 93 of the Dispute Act, first paragraph, second sentence), unless the court decides that the reply shall be submitted at a court hearing during the preparatory stage (Section 9-5 of the Dispute Act). Immediately after the reply has been submitted, the court continues the preparation of the case.

Discovery in the traditional Anglo-American sense is not available in civil cases in Norway.

The general rule is that the parties are obliged to produce the evidence requested, provided that the demand is sufficiently specified. There are several exceptions to this rule, and there is also a general requirement of proportionality between the evidence requested and the importance of the dispute. The right to demand evidence is consequently somewhat different and more limited than “discovery” in the traditional sense.

Regarding witnesses, the general rule is that anyone who has something to explain of importance to the case is obliged to give a witness testimony, provided it is likely that the person has something relevant to explain. If this requirement is met, the person can be ordered to give a witness testimony. There are exceptions to this rule.

Claims for access to evidence are normally submitted in a pleading. The opposing party will then produce the evidence if they agree that the claim is in accordance with the rules. If the parties disagree on whether there is an obligation to present evidence, the court must decide.

As discovery in the traditional Anglo-American sense is not available in civil cases, it is also not possible to obtain discovery from a third party that is not named as claimant or defendant. However, a third party has a similar obligation as the parties to produce evidence that may constitute evidence in the case.

The obligation for third parties is normally enforceable for the party that has demanded the evidence to be produced.

The general approach to discovery in Norway is that there should be a broad right to require the opposing party to produce evidence that could be of importance to the case. However, there is also a general view that this must be proportional and balanced against other considerations. This is a part of the rationale for why traditional “discovery” is not permitted under Norwegian law.

The rules are generally not very detailed. For example, there are no rules requiring the parties to disclose specific documents. In principle, all requests to produce evidence shall be complied with, unless the demand is covered by exceptions.

The legal system in Norway does not provide for discovery in the traditional Anglo-American sense, but does provide for other discovery mechanisms. These mechanisms (described in more detail above and below) are sufficient to obtain evidence that is of importance to the case.

Norwegian law recognises the concept of legal privilege. This is one of the exceptions to the general obligation to provide evidence that is relevant to the case. The courts are not allowed to receive evidence from lawyers regarding anything entrusted to them in their position as counsel. An exception to the general rule is made if the person entitled to confidentiality consents to the sharing of evidence covered by attorney-client privilege.

The ban applies to both in-house and external lawyers. The decisive factor for the scope of the provision is whether the lawyer performs work for a client or for a company in which they are employed, and the employment is of such a nature that it must be regarded as legal practice.

In addition to the rule that evidence covered by attorney-client privilege does not need to be shared, there are also other rules that allow a party to not disclose a document. The rules apply to the following evidence/information:

• information of importance to the security of the kingdom or relations with foreign states;
• discussions in government conferences;
• information that is subject to statutory confidentiality;
• information that is subject to a statutory duty of confidentiality for guardians;
• court proceedings and court decisions;
• evidence related to trust in special professionals;
• evidence about reputation and credibility;
• evidence obtained improperly;
• exemptions for close relatives for information provided by the party;
• incriminating personal data;
• evidence concerning trade secrets; and
• mass media (source protection).

In addition to this, the rule on proportionality between the significance of the dispute and the evidence can also allow a party to not disclose evidence.

Temporary injunctive relief may be awarded when a decision is urgent. There must be circumstances which indicate that there is a need for a temporary decision before the trial can be held, typically because something may occur in the meantime that cannot be reversed later. The injunctions available can:

• require the defendant to refrain from an act;
• require the defendant to perform or tolerate an act; or
• require an asset to be removed from the defendant's possession and taken into custody.

Injunctive relief can be obtained quickly if the circumstances are urgent; how long it takes depends on the urgency of the need for the injunction.

Normally, if the respondent is to be notified and given the opportunity to be present, it will take a couple of weeks from the time the application for an injunction is delivered to the court. In any case, it is a clear prerequisite that the decision must be made quickly.

Injunctive relief can be obtained without notice to the respondent and without the respondent being present. The main rule is nevertheless the opposite: the parties should be given the opportunity to present their opinion on the matter before the court makes a decision on whether to award injunctive relief.

There is only access to obtain the injunctive relief without notice to the respondent and without the respondent present where there is “danger” in waiting. If this criterion is met, the court can award injunctive relief ex parte. In general, this condition will be met where there is a risk that the main claim otherwise cannot be secured.

The applicant can be held liable for damages suffered by the respondent if the respondent later successfully discharges the injunction. There is a fairly strict objective liability for damages in cases where the injunction is revoked or lapses, and it turns out that the plaintiff's claim (the main claim) did not exist when the injunction was decided.

The applicant can be required to provide security for potential damages. The court decides whether the applicant is required to provide security. In situations where the injunction is obtained on an ex parte basis, this will be relevant to include in the assessment of whether security should be required. If it has been decided that security must be provided, the injunction does not come into force before the security has been set.

Injunctive relief cannot be granted against worldwide assets of the respondent.

Injunctive relief can be obtained against third parties in the sense that third parties may be affected by the injunction. In such cases, the third party has the right to intervene in the case.

The consequence of a respondent failing to comply with the terms of an injunction is that the injunction can be enforced in accordance with the Enforcement Act. This may involve the implementation of measures to ensure that the respondent complies with the injunction.

In Norway, civil trials are primarily and as a main rule conducted through oral proceedings.

As a general rule for regular proceedings, the court rules on the subject matter of the action following oral proceedings at a main hearing. Oral hearing is also the main rule for the small claim procedure and in the case of appeals.

The procedure involves oral arguments and can also involve witness/expert examination at hearings.

However, the Disputes Act also provides for written proceedings for certain matters (such as rulings on procedural issues, including whether the case shall be rejected or dismissed, appeals against interlocutory orders and decisions), and when written treatment is viewed to be most effective when combined with active case management. The Dispute Act also provides for the use of written material in oral negotiations, such as written statements from parties and witnesses.

Arrest

If the claimant is ordered to provide security, the arrest shall be executed as soon as the court receives notification that security has been provided. Execution includes deciding which asset shall be arrested if this has not already been decided, establishing legal protection for the arrest and notifying the parties of the result of the execution. The court may, in whole or in part, assign execution of the arrest to the enforcement officer in any judicial district. If the court assigns the enforcement officer the task of deciding which asset shall be arrested, it can decide which asset the enforcement officer should preferably seek.

Interim Measure

The execution of an interim measure shall only take place if (and then as soon as) the claimant requests it.

Small Claim Procedure

In relation to the small claim procedure, the hearing is conducted orally and can be held in the form of a distance meeting. The hearing shall not exceed one day, unless there are particularly strong reasons that warrant a longer hearing.

Case Management Hearings Before More Complex Trials

For regular proceedings, the courts prepare a plan for the proceedings, setting time limits and making necessary decisions, including whether the proceedings in the case should be split.

Jury trials are not available in civil cases in Norway.

The following categories of evidence are explicitly mentioned in the Dispute Act:

• party statements (Chapter 23);
• witness testimony (Chapter 24);
• expert evidence (Chapter 25); and
• real evidence (Chapter 26).

Most evidence can be placed in one of these categories. However, this enumeration of evidence in the Dispute Act is not exhaustive.

There are certain circumstances in which evidence is prohibited. In other cases, the person who is asked to give an explanation or provide evidence may refuse or be exempted from doing so. After a concrete assessment, evidence can also be withheld for other reasons. This applies, among other things, if the evidence is irrelevant, was acquired illegally, or is offered too late.       

Expert testimony is permitted at trial. The parties can introduce expert testimony, and the court itself can seek expert testimony.

Court hearings are normally open to the public. Exceptions from the main rule apply, inter alia, when consideration of the state's relation to a foreign power requires it, for proceedings before the Conciliation Board, in cases concerning a duty of confidentiality and in cases concerning administrative decisions on coercive measures in the health and social services.

The judge has a duty to manage the case and the hearing. How detailed the control should be is up to the court. As the practical conditions for the execution of the main hearing will often be established in advance and discussed with the parties, it will normally be sufficient for the judge to ensure that the plan has been followed and otherwise clarify that everything is in place for a concentrated hearing.

The court shall ensure that the main hearing proceeds in a focused and proper manner without unnecessary delays. Proceedings on issues that are irrelevant to the case shall be denied, as will unnecessary repetition and unnecessarily broad proceedings.

For regular proceedings, the main rule is that the judge, after the main hearing, closes the case for judgment. The ruling shall be pronounced within four weeks after the main hearing or appeal hearing has been concluded. If the case is heard by a single judge, the time limit is two weeks. If the case is so demanding that it is not possible to meet this time limit, the ruling may be pronounced later. The ruling shall state the reason for any delay in pronouncement.

In cases that are tried after the small claims procedure and heard orally, judgment shall be rendered at the end of the court hearing if the judge finds reason to do so. Otherwise, judgment shall be rendered within one week after the parties have been informed that the case is closed for judgment.

The general timeframes for proceedings from commencement of claim through to trial vary depending on the legal institution and procedural form.

For proceedings before the Conciliation Board, the meeting to hear the case should take place within three months after the complaint is submitted.

For regular proceedings in the first instance, the main hearing shall be scheduled no more than six months after the date of submission of the writ of summons, unless special circumstances dictate otherwise. The same applies to appeals. Oral appeal hearings before the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court must normally take place within six months after the appeal has been submitted to the court.

According to the Dispute Act, the case shall normally be concluded by judgment within seven months after the submission of the writ of summons.

For cases tried under the rules for small claims procedures, the timeframe for the hearing will normally be half a day and the case shall normally be concluded by judgment within three months after the writ of summons was submitted.

As a main rule, court approval is not required to settle a lawsuit in Norwegian civil cases, as most cases can be settled through an out-of-court settlement. However, the parties may conclude the settlement as an in-court settlement if they agree on this. The settlement will then be signed by the members of the court and entered in the court register, but the court will not carry out comprehensive control over the content of the settlement.

The parties' right of disposition is limited in certain cases, including matters of personal status and legal capacity, matters regarding the legal status of children and administrative decisions on coercive measures. If such a case is brought before the court, the court has an independent responsibility for the outcome of the case, so a settlement between the parties must be approved by the court. Furthermore, certain cases cannot be settled under any circumstances if they are brought before the court, including child welfare cases.

Civil cases can be settled through an out-of-court settlement or through an in-court settlement. If the settlement is made out of court, it will remain confidential if the parties agree to a confidentiality undertaking. If the parties choose an in-court settlement, the settlement is entered in the court register. Thus, as a main rule, the settlement is public.

An in-court settlement can be enforced if the other party does not fulfil its obligations within the deadline, in the same way as a judgment. On the other hand, an out-of-court settlement is regarded as an ordinary agreement between the parties and is thus not enforceable without further procedural steps.

In-court settlements may be declared invalid or amended by judgment pursuant to the rules for the invalidity and amendment of contracts.

An out-of-court settlement agreement is binding on the parties in the same way as any other agreement. Whether or not an out-of-court settlement agreement can be set aside is a contractual issue and is not subject to procedural rules.

A court decision can be declaratory (for example, “A is the owner of X”) or executory (for example, “A must pay Y to B”). Executory judgments can be for specific performance, damages or injunctions. One of the most common forms of award to a successful litigant is monetary damages. A successful litigant will normally also be entitled to compensation for their costs incurred in relation to the trial.

Other remedies include temporary injunctive relief/interim measures.

Damages are awarded on a compensatory basis – ie, only damages actually suffered are eligible for compensation, apart from some exceptions related to personal injury. Punitive damages in the traditional Anglo-American sense are not awarded under Norwegian law. The court can reduce the liability if it considers it to be unreasonably burdensome for the liable party.

Interest can be claimed under the Default Interest Act from the date payment was due, or within 30 days after the creditor has sent a claim for payment if no due date was agreed. The default interest rate is set biannually to a fixed percentage annual interest rate. Default interest cannot be claimed if the delay is caused by circumstances on the part of the creditor.

Enforcement can be initiated by filing a request for enforcement with the Norwegian enforcement authorities. The most common form of enforcement is the collection of monetary claims. For claims that are secured by a lien, collection normally takes place through forced sale. For monetary claims that are not secured by a lien, the creditor must request a distraint procedure for the distraint of an asset belonging to the debtor. The lien obtained through this procedure then provides a basis for a forced sale. Other mechanisms for enforcement include attachment of earnings and bankruptcy proceedings.

The enforcement of claims other than monetary claims can take place through the direct exercise of power by the enforcement authorities. The enforcement authorities can also impose a current fine until the defendant fulfils their obligation.

The enforcement of foreign judgments in Norway is primarily governed by two legislative provisions: the Enforcement Act and the Dispute Act.

Under these laws, foreign judgments do not have automatic legal effect in Norway and cannot be enforced until they have been declared enforceable. The enforcement of foreign judgments in Norway requires legal authority either by statute or by treaty. The specifics are provided under Section 19-16 of the Dispute Act for legal effect and under Section 4-1 (2) (f) of the Enforcement Act for enforceability.

For judgments from a country within the European Economic Area (EEA) or European Union (EU), the Lugano Convention 2007 is applicable. Norway is a party to this convention, which authorises the recognition and enforcement of judgments made by a court in a Lugano country. The convention mandates that judgments rendered by courts in a convention country should be recognised without any special procedure (Article 33 (1)). A judgment that is enforceable in a convention state should also be enforced in another convention state when it has been declared enforceable in that state upon request from a party with a legal interest (Article 38).

There are a number of exceptions and grounds on which a foreign decision may not be recognised or enforced, such as:

• public policy reasons;
• if the decision was given in default of appearance; or
• if the decision is incompatible with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in Norway.

In Norway, there are mainly three instances for court proceedings:

• the first instance, consisting of the District Courts;
• the second instance, consisting of six Courts of Appeal; and
• the Supreme Court.

Decisions handed down by District Courts can be appealed to one of the six Courts of Appeal. Decisions from the Courts of Appeal can be appealed to the Supreme Court. In exceptional cases, an appeal of a decision from a District Court can be made directly to the Supreme Court.

The court to which the case is appealed decides whether the appeal should be granted. Appeals to the Supreme Court are determined by the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court.

The main rule is that any decision can be appealed to the Court of Appeal by the parties. A decision can be appealed on the basis of errors in the assessment of the facts, the application of the law or the procedure on which the decision is based. Appeals to the Supreme Court can only be granted if the appeal concerns issues that are of significance beyond the scope of the case at hand or if it is important for other reasons that the case is decided by the Supreme Court.

Appeals can be submitted through a notice of appeal to the court that handed down the decision being appealed. The main rule is that notices of appeal must be in writing. The appeal must normally be submitted within one month after the parties are served the original decision.

The appellant court can allow appeals of an entire decision, or only parts of it. The main rule is that the appellant court in a civil case can review and reconsider all aspects of the case that the appeal concerns. The appeal can normally only concern claims that have been decided on in the lower court. If new claims are linked to the claims already decided on and can be processed under substantially the same procedural rules, exceptions can be made, inter alia, if the new claims cannot be tried in a separate case, if the change of claims is related to circumstances that occurred or became known so late that the claim could not have been brought into the case earlier or if the other party does not object to the inclusion of the claims. For appeals to the Supreme Court, new claims can only be included if special reasons justify such inclusion.

The court cannot impose any conditions on granting an appeal.

The appeal is dismissed if it fails. If the appeal concerns procedure and succeeds in this respect, the appealed decision shall be set aside, and the Court of Appeal may decide that the further hearing of the case after the appealed ruling is set aside shall take place before a different court.

If the appeal concerns the content of the decision and succeeds, the appellant court shall make a new decision on the merits of the case, if it has sufficient grounds for doing so. Appealed decisions that are set aside are usually referred to the lower court that made the decision for rehearing.

The parties are responsible for paying their own expenses in relation to the court case, including attorney's fees, unless otherwise agreed or specified by law. Court fees are normally borne by the party who has requested/initiated the court case – ie, the plaintiff. The winning party in a court case is entitled to full compensation for their legal costs from the losing party. The Dispute Act also allows for the full or partial award of legal costs to a party who has prevailed on material points of the case without winning the case in its entirety.

A party can recover all costs that were necessary, considering the significance of the case. A Court of Appeal can review decisions on the award of costs made by lower courts, both through an appeal of the case as such and by appeal specifically over the decision on costs.

When awarding costs, the courts mainly assess whether and to what extent a party has won the case. The courts can also partially or in full exempt a party from liability for the other party's legal costs based on a fairness assessment, considering inter alia whether there was good reason to have the case tried, whether the winning party can be blamed for bringing the case to trial and/or whether the balance of power between the parties warrants an exemption.

An award of costs usually falls due two weeks from the service of the judgment. If a party fails to reimburse the other party within that time, default interest can be awarded, which is set biannually to a fixed percentage annual interest rate.

The majority of civil disputes in Norway are settled through alternative dispute resolution, and dispute legislation has increased the focus on alternatives to traditional court proceedings. The most common method for resolving a dispute out of court is through a settlement between the parties.

The Dispute Act establishes an obligation for the parties to try to resolve the dispute amicably before filing a lawsuit, and court mediation is a standard mechanism at all District Courts and Courts of Appeal. The prevailing party in a court case is normally entitled to full compensation of their costs. However, if the prevailing party has previously rejected a reasonable settlement offer from the other party, this can form the basis for exempting the losing party from liability for the prevailing party's costs.

ADR offered through the judicial system is well organised. There are also several well-organised private organisations that offer ADR, such as mediation and arbitration, including the Bar Association, the Oslo Chamber of Commerce and the Nordic Offshore and Maritime Arbitration Association.

Arbitration that takes place in Norway is governed by the Arbitration Act, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. The enforcement of arbitral awards is regulated in the Arbitration Act and the Enforcement Act.

Disputes in legal matters over which the parties do not have an unrestricted right of disposition cannot be determined by arbitration. The point of departure for assessing whether a claim is subject to unrestricted disposal by the parties is whether the parties can enter into an agreement regarding the claim outside of court proceedings. Divorce is an example of a legal matter over which the parties have restricted disposal – the parties cannot agree extra-judicially to be divorced, which must be determined by a court. Consequently, divorce cannot be referred to and decided through arbitration.

Furthermore, an arbitration agreement will not be binding on a consumer if it was entered into before the dispute arose.

Arbitral awards are binding on the parties and can only be set aside under exceptional circumstances. An arbitral award can be set aside if:

• the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Norwegian law;
• the award is contrary to public policy (ordre public);
• one of the parties to the arbitration agreement lacked legal capacity;
• the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law to which the parties have agreed to subject it;
• the party bringing the action to set aside was not given proper notice of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral 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 arbitral procedure was contrary to law or the agreement of the parties, and it is likely that this has had an impact on the decision.

An arbitral award can be enforced in Norway, irrespective of the country in which it was made. The enforcement process can be initiated by submitting a request for enforcement to the Norwegian enforcement authorities. 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. Documentation may be required to show the existence of an agreement or other basis for arbitration.

As far as is known, there are no proposals for dispute resolution reform.