Business

Director of Irish-registered firm must sue in Norway, not Ireland, court rules

Judge rules Norway is the correct jurisdiction for proceedings brought by Arne Vigeland

Zurich had asked the High Court to rule that Norway and not Ireland was the proper jurisdiction for the case. Photograph: Aidan Crawley

Wed Nov 15 2023 - 19:51

The High Court has ordered that the former director of an Irish-registered equities firm must use Norway, and not Ireland, to fight proceedings he has brought against Dublin headquartered Zurich plc alleging interference with his economic relations.

Mr Justice Michael Twomey ruled that Norway is the correct jurisdiction for proceedings brought by Arne Vigeland for the hearing of his claim for damages for tortious interference in his business affairs arising out of a €1 million legal costs order made against him by the Norwegian courts on December 9th last. Mr Vigeland was removed as director of Dalkey-registered SJI Equities Ltd last January.

The Norway costs order arose out of unsuccessful proceedings in that country by SJI against a number of former board members of Norwegian household renovations company, RenoNorden ASA.

It was claimed that RenoNorden provided SJI’s parent, the Belize-registered investment vehicle SJI Investments Ltd, with incorrect information when it (SJI) bought €5 million in shares in RenoNorden in 2017.

READ MORE

Mr Vigeland, who lives in Nesoya in the Asker Municipality of Norway, said that following the share acquisition, SJI discovered the financial position of RenoNorden was much worse than had been revealed beforehand. RenoNorden went bankrupt in September 2017, he said.

His proceedings against RenoNorden in Norway were ultimately unsuccessful.

However, Mr Vigeland was then sued in Norway by Zurich for the recovery of the €1 million it had paid for legal costs in the RenoNorden case. Zurich had indemnified that firm’s shareholders and directors for that purpose.

Zurich also got a €1 million freezing order on Mr Vigeland’s assets on the basis that he had wrongfully transferred the RenoNorden action from SJI Investments to SJI Equities in order to evade any costs order that might be made in favour of the insurer.

Mr Vigeland said SJI Investments decided not to fund the RenoNorden lawsuit any further after the costs of the claim overran expectations.

Mr Vigeland later tried to have SJI Equities liquidated in Ireland as he said it was insolvent but he said the appointed liquidator had to resign due to his inability to obtain an indemnity from SJI investments.

Last February, Zurich got an order in the Norwegian courts freezing Mr Vigeland’s assets and placing a €1 million charge over his home in Asker.

He then brought proceedings in Ireland against Zurich. He also got a stay in Norway on further proceedings by Zurich for an order requiring him to pay the €1 million.

The stay was to remain in place pending a decision in Ireland over which of the two jurisdictions should deal with his tortious interference case.

Zurich asked the High Court to rule that Norway and not Ireland was the proper jurisdiction for the case.

Mr Vigeland opposed Zurich’s application.

The court heard that at the heart of the Norway versus Ireland debate, what had to be determined was which was the correct jurisdiction in accordance with a treaty on jurisdiction and recognition/enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, known as the Lugano Convention.

In a judgment, Mr Justice Twomey said the proceedings issued by Mr. Vigeland were “concerned with the enforcement” of a judgment which “is to be enforced” in Norway.

They were, therefore, a matter for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Norwegian courts, he said.

In accordance with Article 25 of the Lugano Convention, the court must declare that it has no jurisdiction to deal with these proceedings and they must therefore be struck out on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, he said.

The judge also ordered the parties to engage to see if agreement can be reached regarding all outstanding matters without the need for further court time. If they cannot do so, the case can be brought back before the court.

LATEST STORIES