NORWAY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Lilly Kathrin Relling, Kristian Lindhartsen, Miriam Myhre and Tobias Kilde, Kvale Advokatfirma DA
The Nigerian Navy ordered the Heroic Idun to follow, but the crew believed that the Nigerian ship might be a pirate ship rather than a navy vessel and therefore refused to obey orders and fled Nigerian waters. Nige - ria then asked Equatorial Guinea to detain the vessel. The navy of Equatorial Guinea arrested the Heroic Idun in the exclusive economic zone of São Tomé and Príncipe. The vessel and crew were detained in Equa - torial Guinea and later transferred to Nigeria, where criminal charges followed. The matter was eventually resolved by a plea bargain, including a substantial payment to Nigeria. The NOMA tribunal on law enforcement v “overriding political objectives” Before the NOMA tribunal, the owners of Heroic Idun argued that the detention was a covered war peril under Clause 2‑9 (1)(b), which deals with foreign state interventions made “for the furtherance of an overrid - ing national or supranational political objective”. The tribunal rejected this. The tribunal held that the initial approach, the arrest by Equatorial Guinea, the transfer to Nigeria and the con - tinued detention and prosecution were fundamentally law enforcement measures in response to suspected criminal conduct. The fact that senior officials were involved, that the legal basis was questionable and that a large payment was demanded by Nigeria did not turn these actions into war‑type political measures covered under Clause 2‑9 (1)(b). The tribunal stressed that only motives typical of war or serious international crises qualify as “overriding political objectives”. Routine or even aggressive law enforcement does not fall within Clause 2‑9 (1)(b), even when it feels unfair and illegal from the ship- owner’s perspective. Perceived piracy is not “piracy” The owners also argued that the crew’s belief that they were under pirate attack should trigger cover for “piracy” under Clause 2‑9 (1)(d) and justify sue and labour (mitigation) costs. The tribunal rejected this as well. “Piracy” is a named peril and, on an ordinary reading, refers to actual pirate attacks, not situations where the
initiator is mistakenly thought to be a pirate vessel by the other vessel’s crew. Extending cover to perceived perils would significantly broaden the scope of war risk insurance and introduce difficult topics of evi - dence regarding subjective beliefs. The tribunal held that such a change, if desired, must come through revision of the Nordic Plan, not the court’s interpreta - tion. Conclusion The Heroic Idun case confirms a narrow and predict - able approach to war risk insurance under the Nordic Plan. The decision underlines that the plan covers defined war‑type perils, not general political or regula - tory problems with foreign authorities. As the plan is a market standard for the insurance conditions of many international clubs, the Heroic Idun arbitral award by NOMA should be of interest to owners operating in waters where sporadic coastal state enforcements and piracy are risks. HR‑2024‑2330‑A – the Use of International Choice- of-Law Rules in Norway Norwegian courts have had a pragmatic approach to choice-of-law rules in international disputes since the doctrine of Irma Mignon. The Irma Mignon rule comes from a 1923 Supreme Court judgment (Rt‑1923‑II‑58) about a collision between two Norwegian ships that took place outside Norwegian territorial waters, which forced the court to decide which country’s law should govern the ship-owners’ liability. The court formulated a general principle that the applicable law is found by an overall assessment of where the case has its closest connection. In later years, however, we have seen the Norwegian Supreme Court gravitate towards the EU choice‑of‑law rules in Rome II. The relevant Supreme Court ruling HR‑2024‑2330‑A, published in 2025, further reinforces this trend. The dispute was between the bankruptcy estate of Norwegian shipping company IMSK SE and Ger - man engine manufacturer MAN Energy Solutions SE. It concerned a claim for compensation for ship engines supplied in the early 2000s. In 2013 a German court fined MAN for manipulating engine documenta - tion. IMSK then sued MAN in Oslo in 2015, seeking tort‑based compensation for the losses it claimed to have suffered.
445 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook