Norway: A Dispute Resolution Overview

Most civil disputes in Norway are resolved outside the courts through alternative dispute resolution. Norwegian litigants’ willingness to resolve disputes out of court is not, however, due to any dissatisfaction with the court system. On the contrary, the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index 2025 ranks Norway number 1 globally for civil justice, suggesting that Norway continues to have a competent and trusted court system. Over the past year, the Supreme Court has also provided several important clarifications for the legal community. Below, we highlight some of these clarifications and other trends and developments that may have a significant impact on Norwegian litigation in the coming year.

Court-Ordered Revisions of Commercial Contracts – Towards Higher Standards of Disclosure and Loyalty?

As in most jurisdictions, Norwegian law starts from the premise that agreements are binding. The Norwegian Agreement Act includes a narrow exception to this principle, which allows courts to set aside or amend agreements it would be unreasonable to invoke.

The general notion has for some time been that this unreasonableness exception has particularly limited application in the context of commercial contracts, given the importance of predictability in business relationships. This view was, however, recently nuanced by the Supreme Court in a decision published as HR-2025-251-A Red Rock, where the Court unanimously concluded that a debt reduction agreement following a share purchase transaction had to be set aside as unreasonable. The Court emphasised as follows:

• The high threshold for revising commercial contracts primarily applies in instances where the alleged unreasonableness is based on subsequently changed circumstances. If the revision claim rests on the other party’s failure to disclose information that is material to the agreement, the threshold may be lower.
• A close relationship between the parties implies a heightened duty of loyalty, including an obligation to share relevant information.
• The threshold for revising commercial contracts depends on both the parties’ level of professionalism and their relative bargaining power. The fact that one of the parties, by virtue of its position, resources or expertise, was better placed to shape the terms to its own advantage may indicate that the contract is unreasonable and subject to revision.

The Red Rock judgment has already given rise to multiple claims by commercial parties seeking to set aside allegedly unreasonable obligations. Some have succeeded, particularly where the counterparty failed to disclose material information or breached duties of loyalty and disclosure. As a result, Norwegian contract law may be moving towards higher standards of loyalty and disclosure for commercial parties. This, in turn, may suggest an increased level of litigation on these issues in 2026.

Interest Rate Variation Clauses in Residential Mortgages: Unreasonable and Unlawful?

Although court-ordered revision of contracts may also be available in commercial relationships, the remedy is primarily intended for contracts between consumers and larger commercial entities. One type of contractual term that has recently been scrutinised by the Financial Services Complaints Board are clauses that allow banks to unilaterally change the interest rate on floating-rate residential mortgage loans. In separate decisions issued on 26 January, the Board concluded that two such clauses were unreasonable and therefore unlawful. It noted that the clauses in question provided the banks with a considerable amount of discretion to change interest rates as they deem fit, while consumers are left without any meaningful opportunity to challenge the changes.

The matter is, however, probably far from settled, as the Financial Services Complaints Board’s decisions are not binding on the parties. The respondent banks may hence bring the matter before the courts if they do not wish to comply. Accordingly, the Board’s decisions do not create binding precedent for other banks either. Some banks have already publicly stated that they disagree with the Board’s decisions and that they will continue their current practices for unilateral interest rate changes. Consequently, if banks continue to disregard the Board’s decisions, we may see significant litigation, including leading test cases, in this area in the foreseeable future.

The Increased Role of Climate Law in Norwegian Litigation

Climate change and global warming have long been widely discussed topics, mainly in political arenas. In recent years, we have seen a development internationally which suggests that these concepts are no longer merely a matter of politics, but also of law. This notion recently got a stronger foundation, with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and the International Court of Justice in The Hague both ruling that states are obliged under international law to protect their citizens and the environment from man-made climate change.

Similarly, there have been important and ongoing legal developments in Norway. In a decision of 11 April 2025, published as HR-2025-677-A, the Supreme Court clarified that Norwegian courts are authorised, and in some instances required, to grant interim measures where a claim is based on the argument that rules ensuring environmental considerations have been violated. In November 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered a ground-breaking judgment in the same set of proceedings, holding that the authorities’ decision to approve a plan for the development and operation of three oil fields in the North Sea was invalid because the state had failed to assess the climate impacts of burning oil and gas from the fields. The judgment has since been appealed to the Supreme Court, which in January decided that the case was of such importance that it would be heard and determined by the Court’s Grand Chamber. Consequently, we can expect important and final clarifications in the coming year regarding the scope of the state’s environmental obligations.

Legal Costs – An Obstacle to Access to Justice?

The Dispute Act provides that a party who is successful in an action, as a main rule, shall be entitled to full compensation for its legal costs from the opposing party. Claimants must therefore be prepared to pay not only their own legal costs, but also the opposing party’s costs if they lose.

The potential consequences of this rule in major commercial disputes were recently illustrated by the case brought by former Solstad Offshore shareholder Kistefos. In 2025, the company filed a claim for compensation of NOK1.4 billion against Aker Solutions and Pareto, among others, following a restructuring of Solstad Offshore that left Aker Solutions with majority rights in a Solstad Offshore subsidiary. The case was heard at the end of last year and, as of 5 February, judgment is still pending. If Sveaas is unsuccessful, the litigation may prove extremely costly. The parties have submitted costs claims totalling NOK258 million.

Consequently, pursuing a claim in Norway can involve significant and unpredictable financial risk, which may undermine the fundamental principle of access to justice. Against this backdrop, a working group appointed by the Norwegian Courts Administration and the Norwegian Bar Association has considered new limits on a successful party’s right to recover legal costs. It has proposed, among other measures, that in disputes involving amounts below NOK1,500,000, the successful party may recover no more than 30% of the amount in dispute. In addition, regardless of the amount at stake, it has proposed a rule requiring courts to scrutinise the necessity of the parties’ legal costs more closely than they do today.