6. Thorco's claim against Stolt -phase two (Stolt II)
On rehearing, the Court of Appeal dismissed the case.(1) LA-2018-83695. On appeal -Stolt II - the parties had agreed, that venue for Gard, is a condition(2) Here I have translated "forutsetning" to "condition"; the official translation is "may also be". for venue for Stolt. Consequently the Supreme Court majority said:
"As the Court of Appeal found that Gard did not have venue in Norway, it found that the Stolt companies did not have venue either. With the Supreme Court's ruling that the Court of Appeal's order must be set aside on the part of Gard due to an incorrect interpretation of the "permitted-criterion", the refusal to hear the action against the Stolt companies must also be set aside" (paragraph 84).
The minority agreed with the Court of Appeal's ruling that the suit against Stolt was admissible:
"The question whether such accumulation is possible has not been finally decided in the case. However, a completely(3) The Norwegian text is "helt nødvendig" I would have preferred "absolutely necessary". necessary and general condition for accumulation must be that the court has jurisdiction over the direct action. A certain reluctance should be exercised in accepting a direct action merely based on a general possibility of success. Depending on the fulfilment of other accumulation requirements, such an interpretation may have far-reaching consequences for the tortfeasor" (paragraph 103).