5.1 Introduction
502/2018

5.1 Introduction

After these considerations - if I may use the phrase, of a natural justice character - it is time to explain the reasons given by the Supreme Court for its conclusion.

The opening remark of the Court is that when law, custom or other established rules do not apply, the task is to find the law of the state to which the dispute, according to a total evaluation, has its closest connection (para. 27).(1) The Court refers to the so-called “Irma-Mignon-formula”, deriving its name from a Supreme Court decision in Rt. 1923.II p. 58 regarding a collision between the vessels Irma and Mignon. This formula has since been applied in a number of private law issues. However, if the choice of law question is not solved by Norwegian legislation, “there is reason to take into account the EU’s choice of law rules in the two Rome regulations” (para. 27).

The possible arguments in respect of our problem may be divided into three groups:

  1. Contractual regulation

  2. National regulation

  3. International regulations, i.e. conventions to which Norway is a party and rules in other countries, in particular in EU.