2. The parties and the procedural story
Thorco Cloud was registered in Antigua & Barbado. The owners, registered in Marshall Islands, were A Line, which is a subsidiary of Thorco Shipping A/S in Denmark. At the time of the accident, the vessel was on a bare boat charter to Marship, a German company. P&I insurance was with Standard Club, England, and hull insurance with Mitsui, Japan.
The other vessel was registered in the Cayman Islands and owned by Stolt Commitment B.V in the Netherlands. The vessel was in December 2015 on a bare boat charter to Stolt Tankers in the Netherlands. The owning company and the bare boat charterer are entities in the Stolt group, which is operated from London. P&I insurance was with Gard, Arendal in Norway, and hull insurance was with Gard ME, also domiciled in Arendal, Norway.
Phase one:
The owners, the bare boat charterer and both insurers of Thorco Cloud instigated proceedings against the P&I insurers of Stolt Commitment in Norway, as well as against the Stolt companies (hereinafter Stolt) at the domicile of Gard, demanding a declaratory judgment that there was in principle liability for the loss suffered.(1) Indicated up to USD 120 million.
The Gard companies objected that the chosen court had no jurisdiction according to the Lugano convention.
On the jurisdiction question, the court of first instance:
dismissed the Thorco insurers' claim against Gard,
accepted jurisdiction for owners'/charterers' claim (for the sake of simplicity: Thorco's claim) against Gard,
dismissed the claim against Stolt.
The two last issues were appealed, and the Court of Appeal:(2) LA-2016-170365.
confirmed jurisdiction for Thorco's claim against Gard,
accepted jurisdiction for the claim against Stolt.
Both Gard and Stolt appealed to the Supreme Court (the Stolt I-case), which in a majority decision(3) Questions on jurisdiction are decided by an "order", not a "judgment", and according to Norwegian procedural rules, the competence of the Supreme Court is then limited to questions of correct procedure and interpretation of written law including international conventions. Accordingly, the result of an appeal is in principle either a confirmation or a setting aside conclusion. See Stolt I paragraph 68. (three factions):
set aside the confirmation of jurisdiction for Thorco's claim against Gard,
set aside the acceptance of jurisdiction for Thorco's claim against Stolt.
On both counts the reason was incorrect interpretation of the Lugano Convention.
Phase two:
In the rehearing, the Court of Appeal(4) LA-2018-82999. held that both the claim against Gard and against Stolt were inadmissible.
On appeal to the Supreme Court (the Stolt II-case) we once again had a divided court (3-2). The majority found that the Convention was wrongly interpreted in the case against Gard, and as the case against Stolt was contingent on venue for the suit against Gard, both decisions of the Court of Appeal were set aside.