Reversal of mandate for expert in a case concerning securing of evidence
Supreme Court order 4 March 2019, HR-2019-439-A, (case no. 18-141709SIV-HRET), civil case, appeal against order.
I. Songa Holding AS, Offshore Heavy Transport AS (Counsel Eirik Wensell Raanes) v. Spar Shipping AS (Counsel Jan Magne Isaksen)
II. Lotus Marine AS, Oceanus (Luxembourg) S.à r.l. (Counsel Thomas Gjølberg Naalsund) v. Spar Shipping AS (Counsel Jan Magne Isaksen)
III. Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd. (Counsel Kristoffer Aasebø) v. Spar Shipping AS (Counsel Jan Magne Isaksen)
Justices: Indreberg, Matheson, Noer, Bergh, Lindsetmo
In a case where evidence in the form of digital files was ordered secured under section 28 of the Dispute Act, the District Court had appointed an expert and formulated a mandate for the expert in a separate order. The claimant later demanded a reversal of the expert's mandate. The Supreme Court, having conducted an oral hearing, first referred to the mandate order being a procedural order. As opposed to the Court of Appeal, which had set the District Court's decision aside, the Supreme Court also found that the mandate could not freely be reversed, but that the only legal basis for reversing a procedural order was section 19-10 subsection 1 of the Dispute Act. The appeal against the District Court's decision was dismissed.