7. Stolt I and Stolt II - a summary and "the thereafter"
The results of the two decisions are:
Whether there is jurisdiction in Norway for the direct claim against the insurer depends upon the interpretation of Article 11(2). This article does not require that a direct action is permitted "in the particular case"; and
The Supreme Court did not clarify when there is venue for Thorco's claim against Stolt.
The litigation before the Court of Appeal has been resumed, and it has been decided that the court has competence for the direct action against Gard. The issue of hether there is also venue for the claim against Stolt has also been decided by the Court of Appeal: the court found that there is jurisdiction according to Article 6(1) and stated i.a.:
"The Supreme Court's majority found in Stolt Commitment II, in contrast to the minority in Stolt Commitment I, that insolvency was not a procedural requirement according to Article 11 No. 2. Against this background, systemic considerations and the relationship between the rules of the Convention imply that the insolvency requirement as a basis for the anchor suit does not include the evaluation which the court has to undertake according to Article 6 No. 1."
The decision is appealed to the Supreme Court.