The Court of Appeal has dismissed Arne Vigeland’s appeal against a High Court decision that Ireland lacked jurisdiction over his proceedings against Zurich Insurance Public Limited Company. The dispute concerns whether Vigeland can be held personally liable for a Norwegian costs order made against SJI Equities Limited, an Irish company.
The costs order arose after SJI Equities lost proceedings in Norway against RenoNorden ASA and former directors of that company. On 9 December 2022, the Borgarting Court of Appeal ordered SJI Equities to pay NOK 11,349,923.80 in legal costs. Zurich, which insured the former directors, later sought to recover the costs personally from Vigeland under Norwegian law.
Zurich first obtained an arrest order over certain of Vigeland’s assets in Norway as security for its claim. Norwegian courts found its claim sufficiently probable for that interim order, but did not decide the final question of Vigeland’s liability. Zurich then brought substantive proceedings in Norway seeking damages equivalent to the costs order. Those proceedings were stayed pending the jurisdiction decision in Ireland.
Vigeland’s Irish proceedings, issued in February 2023, sought a declaration that he was not personally liable for losses claimed by Zurich and damages for alleged tortious interference arising from Zurich’s actions in Norway. The High Court granted Zurich’s motion, set aside service of the proceedings and dismissed them for want of jurisdiction, finding that the Norwegian courts had exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(5) of the Lugano Convention.
The appeal turned on whether proceedings about a person’s liability for an existing costs judgment are “concerned with the enforcement” of that judgment. The Court of Appeal held that they are. It said the Irish claim for a negative declaration was the mirror image of Zurich’s Norwegian claim: if Vigeland succeeded, it could prevent enforcement of the Norwegian costs order against him there.
The court therefore concluded that the Irish proceedings had the required connection to enforcement to engage Article 22(5). It dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision to dismiss the proceedings and set aside service on Zurich. The court proposed that Vigeland pay the appeal costs; either party may file written submissions on an alternative costs order within 21 days, with a further 10 days for a reply.