NORWAY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Andreas Stang Lund, Per Conradi Andersen, Alexander Daae and Emilie Wilberg, Kvale Advokatfirma DA
dictability and facilitate more efficient scheduling of hearings. Concerns and cost implications On the other hand, the playback of recordings may be more time-consuming than conducting new exami- nations in some cases;, combined with the fact that parties are allowed to ask supplementary questions, this may reduce the efficiency and increase costs. This concern is particularly relevant where the district court judge has not managed the examination of witnesses efficiently. In such situations, it may not be appropriate to play recordings instead of allowing direct evidence, and there may also be grounds for limiting playback to selected parts of the recordings. In addition, the use of recordings may increase the workload for the parties, since it presupposes more extensive preparations to review the recordings from the district court. Although Norwegian lawyers’ hourly rates are comparatively low by international standards, high litigation costs remain one of the most debated challenges within the Norwegian justice system. Nor- wegian proceedings are generally regarded as high- quality but are extensive, which drives up costs – a reform that may contribute to decreased costs should therefore be a common goal. To address these concerns, the reform provides that the Court of Appeal must assess whether the play- back of recordings is appropriate and justified, on a case-by-case basis. The appellate court is thus afforded a measure of discretion, enabling it to refrain from using recordings, where suitable, based on the circumstances of the case. Digitisation and More Active Case Management A digital court process In recent years, the Norwegian courts have moved away from a paper-based and fragmented procedural model towards a largely digital and more integrated court process. The filing of pleadings, communication between the parties and the court, and case prepara- tion are now to a large extent handled electronically. Digitisation is not merely an efficiency measure, but also a means of improving structure, increasing pre- dictability and enabling a more focused handling of civil cases. At the same time, a clear premise is that
technology should support – not replace – the judge’s independent role, responsibility and legal assessment. Active case management This technological development has gone hand in hand with a stronger emphasis on active case man- agement, which is a central feature of the Dispute Act. Courts are expected to play a more prominent role at the preparatory stage, including by controlling the progress of the case, clarifying which factual and legal issues are genuinely in dispute, and setting the frame- work for the taking of evidence and other procedural steps. The aim is to avoid unnecessary breadth and to ensure that the main hearing is concentrated on what is actually decisive. Digital case handling has made this easier in practice. Electronic systems give judges a better overview of the case documents, timeline and procedural status, which in turn enables earlier and more targeted pro- cedural decisions. Case management hearings can be conducted more quickly and efficiently, and the court is better placed to intervene where a case is develop- ing in an inefficient or otherwise unhelpful direction. Stricter requirements for the documentation of legal costs Amendments to the Dispute Act have tightened the requirements for how legal costs must be document- ed and justified. A party seeking cost recovery must provide a specific explanation for each item in its statement of costs, so that it is clear what work has been carried out and why the cost was necessary. General or aggregated descriptions are no longer suf- ficient. The purpose is to give the court a proper basis for assessing whether the costs are reasonable and proportionate, in light of the significance and scope of the case. At the same time, the courts’ role in scrutinising legal costs has been strengthened. Courts may now reduce or disallow costs claims even where the opposing par- ty has not raised objection, and without prior notice. This places a clear responsibility on the party claim- ing costs to submit a carefully prepared and verifiable statement of costs. In practice, inadequate specifi- cation may have direct financial consequences, and
436 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook