Trekking society may keep its tourist lodge on someone else's land

A trekking society had in 1967 built a tourist lodge under an agreement with the State that considered itself the landowner. After it had been clarified that the lodge was situated on private land, the landowner brought an action against the trekking society demanding that it surrender the property and remove the building. The Supreme Court found, like the lower instances, that section 11 subsection 1 second sentence of the Neighbour Act on buildings partially situated on someone else's land, could be applied analogously in a case like the present. Section 8 of Act relating to unforeseen land tenure (lov om hendelege eigedomshøve) was thus not applicable. The Supreme Court emphasised that the trekking society clearly benefitted most from the lodge, and that the landowner's disadvantages of having the lodge there were small. Whether the requirements in section 11 subsection 1 of the Neighbour Act were met, was not at issue in the Supreme Court. The District Court's judgment, which was in favour of the trekking society, was upheld.  

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only)

Areas of law: Property law, the Neighbouring Act

Key paragraphs: 44, 47–50, 52

Justices: Skoghøy, Kallerud, Ringnes, Falch, Steinsvik