Whether or not an action must be dismissed and referred to arbitration
Supreme Court order of 10 October 2017, HR-2017-1932-A, (case no. 2017/136), civil case, appeal against order.
I.M. Skaugen Marine Services Pte Ltd., I.M. Skaugen SE (Counsel Svein Eriksrud) v. MAN Diesel & Turbo SE, MAN Diesel & Turbo Norge AS (Counsel Henrik Boehlke)
Justices: Normann, Noer, Arntzen, Bull, Endresen
A Norwegian shipping company that had ordered ships from a shipyard in China had decided to use engines from a German supplier. The shipyard entered into a contract with this supplier. The contract contained a provision for arbitration in China. Later, the shipyard entered into a contract with the engine supplier's Danish subsidiary regarding purchase of more engines. This contract contained a provision for arbitration in Denmark.
The Supreme Court heard the case in chambers, and dismissed the shipyard's claim for damages against the engine supplier with regard to the engines that had been purchased by the Danish subsidiary, since the claim was covered by the arbitration clause, see the Arbitration Act section 7 subsection 1. The fact that the claim was based on non-contractual liability was not deemed decisive, as there was a sufficiently close connection between the claim and the contract entered into. On the other hand, the claim for damages was not dismissed with regard to the engines that had been supplied to the shipyard in China. The relevant arbitration clause governed the relationship between the shipyard and the engine supplier, and the shipping company was not a party to this contract. The claim for damages was also a different claim than the one the shipping company could have filed against the engine supplier.