5.2. The Supreme Court decision
As stated above, the Court of Appeal held that Gard could be sued in Norway, and found that the inclusion of the claims against Stolt was in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Convention.
When the issue was brought before the Supreme Court - Stolt I - the Court was divided.
For the majority the outcome was easy:
"The right to include the Stolt companies in the case depends on whether legal action against Gard can be brought in Norway. As I have concluded that the order in the case between Gard and the Thorco companies must be set aside, the same must apply to the court of appeal's order in the appeal case between the Stolt companies and the Thorco companies" (paragraph 107).
The dissenting justices agreed with the Court of Appeal: when it is assumed that the action against Gard has its legal basis in Article 2, the joinder question can be answered based on Article 6(1):
"However, the claims must be so closely connected that it is desirable to hear them jointly to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. The court of appeal has concluded that this condition is met" (paragraph 129).