International commercial arbitration Q4 2025

Under the heading “Why Choose a Danish Seat of Arbitration“, Håkon Djurhus, President of the Danish Arbitration Institute (DIA), stated the following in DIA’s newsletter 18 November 2025: 

“Choosing the seat of arbitration is a strategic decision influenced by many elements. In my experience, Denmark’s continued top ranking in World Justice Project’s (WJP) Rule of Law Index – holding the number one position since 2015 – is not only underestimated, but in fact is among the strongest reasons why parties should select Denmark as a place of arbitration, especially when no one can predict what will happen in the world, either in the short or the long term.” 

In the Rule of Law Index from 2025 mentioned in the quote above, the four Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden rank on top (in that order). Popular arbitration seats as UK and Singapore rank 14^th and 16^th respectively. 

Considering that an agreement to arbitrate is a waiver of the parties right to have their dispute settled by the ordinary courts, we ask:  

Does the choice of seat of the arbitration matter if a dispute arises? 

In short, we support the statement from DIA’s President. The choice of seat may matter for the parties. Below we will provide our thoughts and view on this (from a Norwegian perspective). 

As our readers will know, an agreement to arbitrate is a waiver of the parties’ right to have their dispute decided by the ordinary courts. The ordinary court is therefore at the outset obliged to dismiss any legal proceedings relating to matters that are subject to arbitration.¹ However, the agreed place of arbitration determines which country’s legal system and arbitration law apply – lex arbitri. If Norway is the chosen seat, the arbitration is governed by the Norwegian Arbitration Act of 14 May 2004 (the “Norwegian Arbitration Act”). Like the Danish arbitration act, the Norwegian Arbitration Act is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985). 

Considering the above, and that arbitration primarily is chosen by professional legal entities engaged in commercial activities between themselves, one may argue that ordinary courts and arbitration are two separate dispute resolution institutions without any points of contact. Consequently, the choice of arbitration seat is not that important. However, such a view is in our view not correct. Through the choice of Norway as the place of arbitration, the parties have accepted the overall framework of the Norwegian Arbitration Act and its mandatory legal certainty guarantees. Furthermore, the Norwegian courts may play a role in the following three dimensions: 

• Before the arbitration: Potential aassistance establishing an impartial, independent and competent arbitral tribunal and handling of lawsuits subject to arbitration 

• During the arbitration: Potential assistance regarding access to evidence not produced voluntarily and decision on interim relief and arrest  

• After the arbitration: Deciding potential claims for setting aside an arbitral award as invalid (and potential recognition and enforcement) 

In other words: The ordinary courts and arbitration coexist to achieve the Norwegian state’s desire for an effective, fair and attractive “arbitration space”. At the intersection of their respective jurisdictions, difficult boundaries may arise. Exploring these boundaries would go far beyond the framework of this newsletter. However, in the following we will provide an overview to illustrate the main point: It is important choosing a seat which respect the rule of law. 

First, the ordinary courts’ handling of actions (allegedly) subject to arbitration is important. The court is, pursuant to the Norwegian Arbitration Act § 7, obliged to dismiss any legal proceedings relating to matters that are subject to arbitration. The Norwegian Supreme Court has, among other questions, recently clarified how early a party must invoke an arbitration agreement in order for the courts to be obliged to dismiss the action, see HR-2023-2055-A. Moreover, the judgments in the Skaugen-case provides clarification of what’s covered by an arbitration clause , see HR-2017-1932-A.  

Furthermore, the transfer of an arbitration agreement upon transfer of the legal relationship it covers (the Norwegian Arbitration Act § 10). Issues concerning the binding nature of third parties, for example in the case of recourse, are also dealt with in light of the Supreme Court ruling in  HR-2023-573-A. This subjective scope of an arbitration agreement is further analysed in Voldgiftsavtalens subjektive grenser | Tidsskrift for forretningsjus (commented on our Q4 2024 Newletter). 

Second, the ordinary courts may play a potential role in establishing an impartial, independent and competent arbitral tribunal – especially in ad-hoc arbitrations.  

This is a large and complex issue, particularly in situations where the courts are asked to decide whether an appointed arbitrator must step down due to a lack of impartiality and/or independence, cf. the Norwegian Arbitration Act Section 15 – 17. This topic touches on international best practice (including the IBA’s guidelines² on this subject) with regard to the impartiality of arbitrators, which is a fundamental prerequisite for the legitimacy of the arbitration institution in a state governed by the rule of law. The threshold for the courts to intervene and remove an arbitrator on this basis is high, but it is an important guarantee of legal certainty to ensure an effective, fair and attractive “arbitration space”.   

In dimension 2, the ordinary courts may play a role in connection with the conduct of preparatory proceedings in arbitration.  

The first potential role and competence for the ordinary court in dimension 2, is to secure evidence “on behalf of the arbitral tribunal” (the Norwegian Arbitration Act Section 30). At the outset, this rule of law provides broad access to assistance from the courts to gain access to presumably relevant evidence (both documentary and witness evidence) that a party does not offer voluntarily. Over the years this rule has has been increasingly used in practice. The latest examples are found in two decisions from Gulating Court of Appeal of 17 September 2025.³ You can hear more about this development in the discussion between Ola Nisja and Stephan L. Jervell in Woldgiftspodden Episode 2 . 

The second main role in dimension 2, is the court’s authority to make decisions on provisional security and arrest in relation to legal matters that are subject to arbitration. This is very practical and important supplement to arbitration – even though the arbitral tribunal also has such competence (the Norwegian Arbitration Act Section 19). 

In a decision by Gulating Court of Appeal on 31 October 2023 (LG-2023-116577), it was concluded that the courts should be reluctant to take a preliminary position on issues that will later be decided by an arbitral tribunal – in order to avoid “interfering with the form of proceedings chosen by the parties“.⁴ Even if the level of reluctance has not been clarified by the Norwegian Supreme Court, the decision shows the “respect” the ordinary courts has in relation to the parties’ choice of jurisdiction for the main claim.  

The perhaps most potent role of the ordinary courts is found in dimension 3.  

First, the courts have jurisdiction to set aside a final arbitral award as wholly or partially invalid. The Norwegian Arbitration Act does not allow for any substantive review of the arbitral tribunal’s conclusions – unlike English law, which allows appeals on certain grounds due to incorrect application of the law. Under Norwegian law, the courts may only set aside an arbitral award as invalid if one of the grounds for invalidity listed in Section 43 of the Arbitration Act is fulfilled. A setting aside can have major consequences for the legal relationship between the parties, and it is therefore, important that the judges who decide on claims of alleged invalidity have sufficient knowledge and expertise in arbitration, including international best practice.⁵ Historically, very few invalidity actions have been brought in Norway, but in recent years this number has increased.⁶ Case law shows that the threshold for succeeding in an invalidity action is high, and that they are dealt with relatively quickly.⁷  

Second, the ordinary courts play a role in relation to the recognition and enforcement of a final arbitration award. As this role is not directly linked to the choice of seat, we will not go more into this here.  

In our Q3 2025 newsletter, we reported from the Grand Opening of the Norwegian Arbitration Association’s (NAA) and concluded that the establishment of the NAA is an important step in the right direction in the development of Norwegian (and Nordic) commercial arbitration. Going forward we will monitor and report relevant news in connection with NAA’s work.  

First, Supreme Court Justice Ingvald Falch’s opening speech at the Grand Opening on 25 September 2025 has now been published in Tidsskrift for forretningsjus 5 November 2025. The article is available (free access) here.  

Second, NAA has got a web-page – found here – with information on the board and members of the advisory board. 

Third, we highlight that NAA’s chair, professor Birgitte Hagland, has been interviewed about the establishment of the association in DIA’s newsletter 18 November 2025. The interview can be found here.  

Fourth, NAA’s work to collect and publish Norwegian arbitration awards has been kicked-off. You can hear more about this work in the conversation we had with Knut Høivik and Supreme Court Judge Borgar Høgetveit Berg in Woldgiftspodden episode 2 – which can be found here.  

Fifth, NAA now plays an important role in organizing the Norwegian Arbitration Day (together with Scandinavian Institute of Maritime Law and Oslo Centre for Commercial Law). The program for this year’s event (5 February 2026) has now been released. This year the main focus is challenge of arbitral awards – from the court’s perspective and arbitration, sanctions and ordre public. More details on the program can be found here (And on this note, – see below under “What’s on the Agenda” regarding Wiersholm’s pre-event to 5 February 2026.)  

In our Q3 2025 newsletter, we also commented on a Danish NOMA-award of 5 August 2025. This award has now been published in anonymized version, which can be found here. It noteworthy that the sole arbitrator in this case, Lotte Wetterling, commented as follows on LinkedIn: 

NOMA’s arbitration rules are a pleasure to work with and reflect the essence of Nordic efficiency and flexibility in dispute resolution.  

The third NOMA-Day was held in Helsinki 30 October 2025 – under the heading “NOMA fit for maritime cluster”. According to an update on LinkedIn, Adrian Moylan‘s (Gard AS) talk on “Arbitration clauses from an insurer’s perspective” gave an interesting perspective on the development of LMAA arbitration: Initially LMAA-arbitration worked very well – achieving swift commercial decision from commercial people with market knowledge and commercial common sense. However, in Mr. Moylan’s view, this changed after the UK Arbitration Act in 1996– which paved the way for formal court style processes, with lawyers taking over the presentation of arguments and making the decisions (awards). Over time LMAA arbitration has, in his view, become slow, unwieldy, ageing and very expensive and thus the NOMA initiative was very welcome – being shorter and cheaper, see more here. 

After the NOMA Day, we had the opportunity to talk with Mathias Steinø on why most companies want the dispute solved as close to “home” as possible. You can read a summary of Mathias’ views here and listen to the conversation on Woldgiftspodden episode 2 (see below).  

We also note that NOMA’s Standing Revision Committee has got new members, see here. 

We have previously highlighted the Norwegian rule on joint appointment to secure an independent and impartial arbitral tribunal and in our Q4 2024 Newsletter we argued: 

“[…], the joint-appointment rule should in our view become the starting point in the rules of all the other Nordic arbitration institutions. We see no downside of having this as the default rule as parties may at any time choose to opt for the current standard appointment rule.” 

Following this, NOMA has expressed a similar view in the article “NOMA – Providing Solution Based Arbitration Across the Nordics”, published in the e-book 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗶𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝘂𝗺 𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟱 – 𝗔 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰 𝗖𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀, see here. 

Taking into account that NOMA already has incorporated the rule on joint appointment as the starting point in the NOMA Arbitration Rules of 2024 Article 6 (1) and 7 (1)), this position is expected. However, the support for rule increases in strength: 

In Knut Høivik’s article “𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗝𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗹 – 𝗔 𝗡𝗼𝗿𝘄𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗕𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲” he makes the case for joint appointment from a Norwegian business perspective, (ii) supports that the rule is “exported” and developed into a competitive advantage for Nordic arbitration in the international arena and (iii) elaborate on the following main supporting arguments: 

• It ensures that the composition of the tribunal remains under the shared control of the parties 
   

• The parties control the crucial authority to appoint the presiding arbitrator  
   

• As no direct “link” exists between any individual arbitrator and a specific party – joint appointment reduces the risk of bias often associated with party-appointed arbitrators 
    

Lastly, and but very noteworthy, Wikborg & Rein Partner Marie Nesvik and Specialist Counsel Anne-Karin Nesdam have written a chapter in the Stockholm Arbitration Law Review, titled “Unilateral Party-Appointment and Affiliation Bias: Is Joint Appointment the Solution?”, see here. Affiliation bias is the arbitrator bias caused by implicit preferences for the appointing party. The article discusses this bias in arbitration, inter alia by pointing to advantages and disadvantages with alternative methods for appointing arbitrators. In their concluding remarks, the authors states e.g. the following:  

“These characteristics [the legal community being fairly small and easy to oversee – as well as generally characterized by trust and pragmatism] are something the Nordic countries share, and we would therefore expect the shared characteristics of the Nordic arbitration environments to be conducive to making joint-party appointment a viable and valuable method.” 

Based on this, it will be exciting to see if there will be any alignment among the Nordic arbitration institutions regarding the joint-appointment rule.  

For readers familiar with both arbitration and EU/EEA law, it will be well known that arbitration is only marginally covered by EU legislation. A working group from Sorbonne University in Paris has, however, addressed the question of whether this distinction should be maintained in the future. 

In its report, Towards an EU Law on International Arbitration, published in April 2025, the group explores the possibility of bringing arbitration within the scope of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). Among other things, the report proposes the introduction of a new Article 25, granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of the seat of arbitration to render decisions on the constitution of the tribunal (unless otherwise agreed between the parties), as well as on the annulment, recognition or enforcement of the arbitration agreement or the award. Often referred to as a ‘European passport’, such a decision would then have to be recognized by the other member states. 

The recommendations have recently been discussed in the article European Harmony in the latest issue of Commercial Dispute Resolution – Arbitration around the world, where they received positive feedback. We will continue to follow the development of this proposal closely. 

Woldgiftspodden episode two is now out. As already mentioned, we talk with Mathias Steinø in Finland in the wake of the third NOMA day in Helsinki. There, discuss why most parties benefit from having their arbitration cases as close to “home” as possible, why habit is not always a good strategy when choosing the seat of arbitration, and take a closer look at what Nordic pragmatic self-confidence means. 

Next, we pick up the thread from the opening of the Norwegian Arbitration Association (NAA) and discuss with Borgar Høgetveit Berg and Knut Høivik how the NAA intends to proceed to get more Norwegian arbitration awards published, why this is important, and what can or should be done if they encounter closed doors. 

We round off with a discussion with Ola Nisja and Stephan L. Jervell about access to evidence in arbitration. Here, they discuss, among other things, the (negative) developments regarding the scope of evidence access processes in arbitration, what can or should be done about this, and whether the introduction of deadline provisions modeled after the Norwegian Dispute Act § 16-7 may be relevant in arbitration. 

Link to the full episode can be found here.  

For the third consecutive year Wiersholm is hosting a pre-event to the Norwegian Arbitration Day on 5 February 2026 at 11:30 The main theme of the two first events was Group Think and use of Decision Threes. We round off our “Bias Trilogy” with a classic: Confirmation Bias in Arbitration: Hidden danger and strategic opportunity.  

Confirmation bias is one of the most well-documented cognitive biases and perhaps the most overlooked in the courtroom. All human beings tend to seek out evidence that supports what we already believe, and lawyers are no exception. Choosing arbitration over settlement carries a risk of a negative outcome: The counsel may have been blind to the weaknesses of their own case and miss the evidence and arguments that could move the tribunal. 

At the same time, confirmation bias can be an opportunity. Since judges and arbitrators are influenced by the same psychological mechanisms, litigators who understand these processes can frame their arguments in ways that reinforce the tribunal’s intuitive convictions. 

Also, this year Psychologist and Decision-science Researcher Jan-Ole Hesselberg will give the keynote address – followed by a panel discussion with the following panellists: 

• Lotte Eskesen, partner Gorrissen Federspiel 

• Hans-Patrick Schroeder, Partner Freshfield 

• Anne-Maria Tamminen, Managing Partner, Hannes Snellman 

• Johnny Herre, Independent Arbitrator and former Supreme Court Judge 

• Morten Goller, Partner Wiersholm 

If you want to attend, please register here.  

There are many events to choose from on the international commercial arbitration scene. We recommend considering the following upcoming happenings:  

• 5 February 2026: Norwegian Arbitration Day 14:30 – 19:00 (registration here)  – with pre-events at Wiersholm 11:30 – 14:15 (registration here) and BAHR 09:00 – 12:30 (registration here) 

• 23 – 27 March 2026: Paris Arbitration Week – a week filled with series of events concerning arbitration for the global arbitration community 

• 25 – 27 June 2026: Annual International Arbitration Conference – “Limits and obstacles to arbitration” in Helsinki 

• 10 – 11 September 2026: Swedish Arbitration Days – Save the date 

• 29 October 2026: NOMA-Day in Oslo – Save the date