Rejection of a class action due to the lack of jurisdiction
The Supreme Court's Appeal Selection Committee's order 19 August 2019, HR-2019-1577-U (case no. 19-87874SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against order
Leif Magne Tandstad (Counsel Erling Torbjørnsson Eggen represented by Anne Christina Ødegaard) v. HSBC Holdings plc, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank plc (Counsel Alexander Michael Plows)
Justices: Normann, Bull, Bergh
A class action against a major British bank was brought before Oslo District Court because the claimants had been defrauded by a Norwegian company that had given the impression that it provided loans in the British bank by using its name and logo, and because the bank had acted negligently by operating with inadequate control and safety routines. The Appeals Selection Committee found like the lower instances that the case could not be brought before a Norwegian court based on the provisions in Article 5 (3) of the Lugano Convention, and that leave to appeal could not be granted. There had been no cooperation between the Norwegian firm and the British bank, and nothing suggested that the bank ought to have foreseen that others would misuse its name, logo etc. in an attempted fraud causing damage in Oslo. If the general risk of misuse should be sufficient to sue the bank anywhere the swindlers might succeed, this would completely water down Article 5 (3) of the Lugano Convention, which must be interpreted restrictively according to the Court of Justice of the European Union.