Dispute
01/26
Table Of Contents
Welcome note
The case for modernising the Norwegian Arbitration Act
Third-party litigation funding in the Nordics and beyond
Looking outward: How Norway’s Supreme Court is internationalising arbitration law
Welcome note
Dear friends and colleagues,
This edition of BAHR Dispute Resolution Insight comes as the firm takes an important step: the opening of our offices in Stockholm and Copenhagen. With teams now in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, BAHR is becoming a truly pan-Nordic law firm. The articles in this edition reflect that shift — bringing a comparative perspective to some of the pressing issues in Nordic dispute resolution.
The first article examines the possibility of modernising the Norwegian Arbitration Act, inspired by recent modernising efforts in other jurisdictions such as the UK and Sweden. We explore the principal current gaps in legislation, a potential policy rationale that could drive reform, and what an updated framework might mean in practice for parties, counsel, and institutions operating in Norway.
The second article offers a comparative overview of third-party litigation funding in
Norway and Sweden. As this form of funding continues to attract growing interest across the Nordic region, the article maps the current regulatory landscape, identifies key considerations for parties contemplating funding arrangements, and reflects on the state of practice on both sides of the border.
The third article turns to the use of international sources in Norwegian Supreme Court practice in arbitration-related cases. It examines how the Supreme Court has engaged with international instruments and comparative material to bring Norwegian arbitration law and practice in line with international best practices, as well as what that engagement tells us about the normative framework shaping Norwegian arbitration law today.
We hope you find the articles useful and wish you a good summer.
Adele Matheson Mestad PARTNER / HEAD OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION
The case for modernising the Norwegian Arbitration Act
International arbitration has become one of the most significant industries in the legal world. As cross-border commerce has expanded and commercial disputes have grown in complexity, arbitration has emerged as the preferred mechanism for resolving high-value international disputes. In this context, the quality and modernity of a jurisdiction’s arbitration framework matter for the attractiveness of its legal market, for the confidence of international investors, and for the efficiency of its domestic dispute resolution system. Norway’s arbitration legislation is now approaching a quarter-century since its last update. This article examines the current opportunity to take concrete steps that would bring Norway’s framework back into line with international best practices.
A global industry in growth
The major international arbitration centres like London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm, and Switzerland represent significant nodes of economic activity, generating substantial revenue for legal and professional services sectors and reinforcing the broader attractiveness of their jurisdictions as places to do business. The London Court of International Arbitration (“LCIA”), the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), the
Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (“SCC”), and the Swiss arbitration institutions between them handle many thousands of cases annually, often involving parties from dozens of countries and disputes worth hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
The competition between these centres has been healthy and consequential. Each has invested in modernising its rules, improving its procedures, and responding to the needs of users, including on issues such as third-party funding, emergency arbitrators, technology-assisted proceedings, and the protection of confidential information. The result is a virtuous cycle: leading practitioners recommend leading centres, which in turn attract the most significant disputes, which further enhance their reputations. Norway, with its open economy, its internationally active shipping, energy and financial sectors, and its sophisticated commercial legal market, ought to be a natural participant in this ecosystem, such that Norway retains disputes in areas where it has expertise and does not unnecessarily cede ground to other jurisdictions.
Norway’s arbitration framework: an opportunity for update
The Norwegian Arbitration Act of 2004 (the “NAA”) was a creditable piece of legislation when it was introduced. It was based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”), the result of an international joint effort to codify best-in-class arbitration rules and guidelines. However, the NAA has not been updated since the 2000s, which presents a significant oppor-tunity to update and streamline the law to track developments internationally.
Learning from others: how leading jurisdictions have kept pace
The contrast with the leading jurisdictions is instructive. England’s Arbitration Act 1996, itself a landmark piece of legislation, has recently undergone its first significant reform since enactment, with the Arbitration Act 2025 introducing targeted updates on issues including arbitrator disclosure obligations, jurisdictional challenges, and the governing law of arbitration agreements. The reforms are considered, proportionate, and responsive to practitioner concerns.
Singapore’s approach has been even more proactive. The Singapore International Arbitration Act has been updated on multiple occasions to keep pace with developments in arbitral practice, ensuring that Singapore’s legislative framework is never a source of friction for parties choosing to arbitrate there. This model of continuous improvement, being modest, targeted, and responsive, has been central to Singapore’s rise as the world’s leading seat for international arbitration in Asia and, increasingly, globally.
The Swedish example: a Nordic peer that moved first
For Norwegian readers, the most immediately relevant comparator may be Sweden. The Swedish Arbitration Act was comprehensively updated in 2019, following an extensive review process. The reforms addressed a range of issues including costs, challenges to arbitrators, the conduct of proceedings, and the ability of parties to correct awards. They were implemented in a manner that reinforced Sweden’s and the SCC’s standing as a leading Nordic and inter-national arbitration venue.
Sweden’s reform is significant not only because of what it achieved substantively, but because of what it signals about Nordic ambitions in this space. Stockholm has long been the preferred seat for disputes involving parties from the former Soviet Union and Central and Eastern Europe, and its continued investment in its arbitral framework reinforces that competitive position. Norway risks ceding further ground even within the Nordic region itself if it fails to keep pace.
The cost of standing still
Stagnation has real costs. Norwegian companies engaged in international commerce are regularly advised to choose foreign seats, such as London, Stockholm, Geneva, for their arbitration agreements. By signalling that Norway is ready to update a key element of its dispute resolution offering in the form of modernised arbitration procedures and laws could be a first step to counter this and would instil confidence and
About the authors
Atle Skaldebø-Rød
PARTNER
+45 922 87 727 atska@bahr.no
Atle Skaldebø-Rød is a member of BAHR’s Dispute Resolution team and is a highly experienced and acclaimed all-round litigator. He represents BAHR’s clients in cases before the ordinary courts and in arbitration, as well as in alternative forms of dispute resolution, both nationally and internationally.
Daniel Steel
MANAGING ASSOCIATE
+47 930 48 734 daste@bahr.no
Daniel is part of BAHR’s Dispute Resolution team. His practice focuses on international arbitration, cross-border litigation, and investigations & compliance. Daniel has over ten years of experience advising clients in arbitration matters under the ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, SIAC, HKIAC, CIETAC, and UNCITRAL rules.
Amund Bjøranger Tørum
PARTNER | DR. JURIS
+47 986 42 573 abt@bahr.no
Amund is a leading capacity on contracts and projects and one of the most prominent litigators and arbitration specialists in Norway and the Nordics. His broad background as litigator, arbitrator, professor and in-house counsel enables him to provide sound advice and tailor strategies in a wide range of industries, projects and disputes.
Third-party litigation funding in the Nordics and beyond
Third-party litigation funding has become an increasingly significant feature of international dispute resolution. Once regarded as a legal curiosity, and in some jurisdictions an outright illegality, external funding of litigation and arbitration has matured into a sophisticated, multi-billion-dollar industry that is now a routine feature of the commercial dispute resolution landscape. For parties with strong claims but constrained resources, and for commercial actors seeking to manage litigation risk off their balance sheets, understanding how third-party funding works has become essential. This article provides an overview of the market, the regulatory environment, with particular attention to the position in Norway and Sweden, as well as the key financial and procedural considerations that parties and their advisers need to understand.
From prohibition to mainstream: the evolution of litigation funding
The historical resistance to third-party litigation funding was rooted in the common law doctrines of maintenance and champerty. Maintenance refers to assistance to a litigant by someone with no legitimate interest in the outcome, while champerty refers to a species of maintenance where the third party receives a share of the proceeds. Both were considered civil wrongs and, in many jurisdictions, criminal offences, on the basis that outside funding would encourage speculative claims, corrupt the administration of justice, and give rise to conflicts where a litigant’s interests may be subordinated to those of the funder.
Those concerns have been substantially displaced. The progressive relaxation of maintenance and champerty rules, particularly in England and Wales, Singapore, and Hong Kong, has allowed the funding industry to develop rapidly. The recognition that meritorious claims were going unfunded simply because claimants could not afford to pursue them has been central to this shift. The industry has responded by professionalising: the largest funders are publicly listed companies, subject to regulatory oversight and governed by codes of conduct. The result is a market that deploys capital running into the billions of dollars annually, with London and Singapore serving as its principal centres. Stockholm has also seen some development of funding activity, particularly in SCC-administered arbitrations, although the market remains comparatively limited.
The regulatory landscape: the EU, Norway and Sweden
The European Parliament recognised the regulatory challenge posed by third-party funding in a 2022 resolution calling on the European Commission to introduce a harmonised regulatory framework for the industry across the EU. The Commission’s response has been cautious, and comprehensive EU-level legislation has not materialised. The result is
that third-party funding continues to be regulated (or not) at the Member State level, producing a patchwork of approaches across the single market.
For practitioners advising on disputes seated in Scandinavia, the divergence between Norway and Sweden is notable. In Sweden, external funding is generally considered permissible in practice, subject to general principles of contract and procedural law. This has provided a clearer platform and has supported the development of a functioning funding market in relation to SCC proceedings and Swedish court litigation.
Norway’s position is considerably less settled. Litigation funding is not subject to any dedicated statutory regime; its permissibility falls to be assessed under the general principles of contract and procedural law. While litigation funding is not expressly prohibited, several developments illuminate the framework and point to considerable potential restriction:
• Licensing requirements: The Norwegian Financial Institutions Act’s plain wording does not expressly require licensing of litigation funders, as the term “financing activities” under that legislation is defined as the granting and arranging of credit and guarantees,1 and expressly excludes “financing that is only provided in isolated/ individual cases”. 2 However, Norway’s Financial Supervisory Authority (the “FSA”) has historically taken the view that litigation funders fall under the act’s licensing requirements and must obtain a permit to both offer and market litigation and arbitration funding in Norway. 3 This led to one of the first entrants into the Norwegian market, Therium Nordic, terminating its Norwegian operations in 2023, despite its view that litigation funding constitutes case-by-case investment rather than financing in the conventional sense.4 Therium challenged the FSA’s interpretation before the Ministry of Finance but withdrew before an official pronouncement
1.Financial Institutions Act section 2-1 (2).
2.Financial Institutions Act section 2-1 (3) f.
3.FinansWatch, "Finanstilsynet vil stoppe Theriums søksmålsfinansiering" (25 February 2021) (available at https://finanswatch.no/nyheter/regulering/article12785099.ece).
4.AdvokatWatch, "Avviklet Theriums nordiske Kontor: - Vi er selvfølgelig skuffet" (8 September 2023) (available at https://advokatwatch.no/nyheter/advokater/article16400090.ece).
was issued. In practice, some funders have adopted a cautious approach of responding to inbound enquiries from Norwegian clients without conducting active outbound marketing, on the basis that the regulatory risk associated with active solicitation is higher — though this distinction does not rest on a clearly articulated legal basis and does not necessarily insulate a funder from FSA scrutiny.
• Class action recoveries: In HR-2023-1034-A, the Supreme Court held that Norway’s statutory framework does not permit litigation funders to receive payment through a prior deduction from the total compensation awarded to group members in an opt-out class action. The Court reasoned that the Norwegian Dispute Act specifically regulates the liability of group members and does not permit imposition of liability through an obligation to provide a return on investment to a third party, regardless of any funding arrangement in place.
• Professional conduct: The Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers in Norway require that lawyers generally not be influenced by considerations other than their client’s best interests. This may create structural tension where a funder is paying the lawyer’s fees, raising the risk that advice may be shaped by the funder’s interests rather than the client’s.
Financial considerations: what funders look for and how deals are structured
What funders look for: Third-party funders are, at their core, investment managers deploying capital in pursuit of returns. The minimum claim value for most institutional funders falls in the range of EUR 5-10 million, though this varies by funder and case complexity. A large claim value relative to the anticipated costs is a significant advantage; funders are wary of cases where legal costs may consume a disproportionate share of any recovery.
Assessing the merits: Before committing capital, funders conduct extensive due diligence on both the legal merits of the claim and the practical prospects of recovery. Funders typically require a favourable independent assessment of the claim, usually pointing to a 60–70% probability of success. Equally important is enforceability: funders will not invest in a claim if recovery prospects are low, regardless of the substantive strength of the claim. The location and reachability of assets are a central part of the funder’s investment calculus.
Economic terms and settlement dynamics: Funding agreements typically provide for the funder to be repaid its invested costs (i.e., the legal fees and expenses it has funded) together with a return calculated either as a multiple of invested capital, commonly in the range of 2–3 times, or as a percentage of the gross recovery, typically between 20% and 40%, with the higher of the two formulas usually applying. The economic formula generally applies to any settlement amount, not merely to a contested award, meaning the funder participates in the upside of a negotiated resolution. This creates a potential alignment issue: funders have their own incentives regarding the timing and terms of settlement, which formed the basis of the historic resistance to the practice of third-party funding.
Enforcement support: Major funders have experience and relationships across the principal enforcement jurisdictions and some offer continued financial support for enforcement proceedings, either under the original funding agreement or under a separate arrangement. For claimants pursuing defendants with assets spread across multiple jurisdictions, the funder’s involvement in the enforcement phase can be a material practical advantage.
Disclosure: an emerging and unsettled obligation
The growth of third-party funding has generated a parallel debate about transparency. In international arbitration in particular, the question of whether a funded party must disclose its funding arrangement (and to
whom) has become increasingly significant. The concern is that an arbitrator may have a financial interest in the funder without either party being aware of it, giving rise to an undisclosed conflict of interest. The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest require parties to identify their funder to arbitral tribunals to enable appropriate disclosure. Several leading arbitral jurisdictions have gone further and imposed statutory or rule-based disclosure obligations. In Singapore, legislation introduced in 2017 requires funded parties in arbitration to disclose the existence of a funding agreement and the identity of the funder. Hong Kong followed with comparable legislation the same year. The ICC, SIAC and LCIA rules all now address third-party funding in some form.
Norway has no equivalent mandatory disclosure framework. The position in Norwegian court proceedings is governed by general procedural principles, and there is no express obligation to disclose the existence or terms of a funding arrangement. As the funding market develops in Norway, clarity on the domestic disclosure position would be a welcome development.
Closing thoughts
Third-party litigation funding is no longer a niche instrument reserved for insolvent claimants or speculative mass tort claims in the global context. It is a mainstream feature of sophisticated commercial dispute resolution, used by well-resourced companies and experienced counsel as a rational tool for risk management and capital allocation. For Norwegian parties and practitioners, the key takeaways are practical: understand what funders look for, structure any approach to a funder with a clear-eyed view of the merits and enforcement prospects, negotiate economic terms with care and be attentive to the disclosure framework applicable to the proceedings in question. The regulatory environment in Norway remains underdeveloped relative to leading dispute resolution jurisdictions, with a lack of clarity potentially undermining the continued development of a litigation funding market, and that gap is worth monitoring as the international landscape continues to evolve.
About the authors
Adele Matheson Mestad
PARTNER
+47 952 45 244 amm@bahr.no
Adele is the Head of BAHR’s Dispute Resolution team. Drawing on her background from the Office of the Attorney General (Civil Affairs), she has extensive expertise in public law disputes. Adele’s experience spans all levels of the Norwegian court system— including the District Courts, Courts of Appeal, and the Supreme Court – as well as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Daniel Steel
MANAGING ASSOCIATE
+47 930 48 734 daste@bahr.no
Daniel is part of BAHR’s Dispute Resolution team. His practice focuses on international arbitration, cross-border litigation, and investigations & compliance. Daniel has over ten years of experience advising clients in arbitration matters under the ICC, LCIA, AAA/ICDR, SIAC, HKIAC, CIETAC, and UNCITRAL rules.
Daniel Sipos
PARTNER
+47 928 55 425 dassip@bahr.no
Daniel Sipos is a member of BAHR’s Dispute Resolution group. He regularly represents clients in litigation and arbitration involving complex, high-value commercial disputes. Additionally, he has extensive experience advising on insolvency-related matters.
Looking outward: How Norway’s Supreme Court is internationalising arbitration law
For most of its modern history, Norwegian arbitration was a domestic affair in the fullest sense: Norwegian parties, Norwegian counsel, Norwegian procedural habits. When difficult questions arose, Norwegian arbitrators reached instinctively for the familiar toolkit of civil litigation. The gap between that world and the sophisticated, genuinely international practice that characterises leading arbitration centres today could hardly be wider. Yet over the past two decades, and with increasing confidence in recent years, Norway’s Supreme Court has been closing that gap, drawing on international sources, engaging with global best practice, and signalling that Norwegian arbitration is no longer content to look inward. This article traces that journey and examines what it means for the future of arbitration in Norway.
From local courtrooms to the world stage
The Norwegian Arbitration Act (the “NAA”), which entered into force in 2005, was a pivotal turning point. Although Norway ratified the New York Convention in 1961, establishing the mutual recognition of arbitral awards rendered in signatory states, arbitration in Norway remained parochial. Virtually all arbitrations in
Norway at the time consisted of only Norwegian parties, with the participants primarily experienced in litigation, leading to procedural questions being resolved by reference to the rules and instincts of domestic civil litigation.1
The NAA has slowly shifted this zeitgeist. Based on the UNCITRAL Model Law (the “Model Law”), it brought Norway into the
community of ‘Model Law countries’, which look to each other for guidance, consistency, and the progressive development of shared standards. Uniformity regarding international trade was the reasoning behind UNCITRALs Model Law on Arbitration. By adopting it as the foundation for the NAA, Norway committed, at least in principle, to engaging with that broader conversation. Over the twenty years since, practitioners, parties and, crucially, courts have increasingly made good on that commitment by increasingly referring to international best practices to understand the NAA and its application.
Best practices: a moving target with global coordinates
To understand what Norwegian courts are engaging with when they look to international sources, it is necessary to understand what ”best practice” in international arbitration actually means. The term is inherently dynamic. It does not refer to a fixed code or a single authoritative text, but rather to an evolving body of recognised solutions to procedural questions in international arbitration, shaped by the interplay between arbitral institutions, practitioner organisations, and leading academic authorities.
For practical purposes, best practice draws on three principal sources. First, the rules of the leading arbitral institutions (e.g., the ICC, the SIAC, the LCIA, and in the Nordic context the SCC), which are regularly revised by highly skilled practitioners to address new needs and reflect current international standards. Amendments to these rules can quickly come to be regarded as expressions of emerging best practice, creating a mutually reinforcing dynamic between institutional rulemaking and broader practice development. Second, guidelines issued by bodies such as the International Bar Association (IBA), whose Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration and Rules on the Taking of Evidence occupy a particularly prominent place. Unlike institutional rules, IBA guidelines can apply even without the parties’ express agreement, by virtue of their broad acceptance across the arbitration community. Third, leading academic literature, above all Gary Born’s International
Commercial Arbitration and Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, which serve a quasi-codifying function, articulating best practice in a field where much of the relevant knowledge is unwritten and accessible only to those with deep experience of international practice.
Three Norwegian Supreme Court cases and three steps forward
HR-2017-1932-A Skaugen. The Skaugen case arose from a NOK 400 million damages claim by a Norwegian shipping company Skaugen against German engine supplier MAN, after it emerged that the engines had been purchased based on incorrect fuel consumption data. Before the Supreme Court, the central questions were whether the dispute was subject to arbitration and whether a third party, MAN’s Norwegian subsidiary, was bound by an arbitration clause to which it was not formally a signatory.
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court took a notable step towards recognising the relevance of international sources in Norwegian arbitration law. The Court stated that foreign sources may be relevant by virtue of their persuasive value, particularly in fields like arbitration where Norwegian rules have been largely adapted to international standards. Drawing on Gary Born’s International Commercial Arbitration, the Supreme Court endorsed the principle that a third party may be bound by an arbitration agreement through implied consent, citing the UK House of Lords’ decision in Premium Nafta Products v Fili Shipping for the proposition that a party may not defeat an arbitration clause by casting its claim in tort rather than contract. The Court further noted that it appears to be in line with a trend in international arbitration that questions of this kind are resolved on the basis of what might be called a ‘denationalised approach’ and freer considerations regarding the parties’ shared assumptions and reasonable expectations. However, the Court simultaneously acknowledged that Norwegian judges’ conclusions would inevitably be coloured to some extent by established Norwegian legal thinking, thus reflecting a reserved approach rather than a full-throated
1.Tørum, «Norsk ad hoc i en brytningstid» (2017) s. 77; Mæland, Voldgift (1988) s. 131; Brækhus, «Voldgift – erfaringer og refleksjoner» (1999) punkt 3.1 fjerde avsnitt.
adoption of international methodology.
HR-2023-2055-A. This case arose from the termination of a distribution agreement between IdHair Company and ByWe, containing an arbitration clause providing for arbitration in Denmark. When IdHair terminated the agreement in 2017, IdHair brought a damages claim against ByWe before the ordinary courts. When ByWe failed to raise its arbitration objection before the Conciliation Board, the question was whether it had forfeited the right to invoke the clause. The Supreme Court found that it had.
The Supreme Court dismissed ByWe’s appeal, as ByWe had lost its right to invoke the arbitration clause by submitting to the merits before the Conciliation Board without raising the objection in time.
In this case, the Supreme Court demonstrates that Norwegian arbitration law actively draws on international sources but does so in a selective and restrained manner. The key international reference is the Model Law, and the
Supreme Court emphasises that the NAA is based on the Model Law, and that a key objective is to achieve international legal uniformity. The wording of the Model Law is directly invoked as an interpretative argument, and the consideration of harmonisation with international law is accorded independent weight. The use of the Model Law is not, however, uncritical: the Supreme Court notes that the wording of the Model Law does not provide an unambiguous answer either and that there does not appear to be a clear international practice that can serve as a guideline. The judgment thus illustrates a pattern whereby the Supreme Court uses the Model Law as a supporting and harmonising argument where the wording supports the interpretation the court has already arrived at.
HR-2025-921-A: The impartiality case The most recent of the three cases, and the most striking example of the Supreme Court’s engagement with international sources, concerned whether an arbitrator was disqualified on account of his firm’s ongoing client relationship with one of the parties, even though he personally had no
involvement in that work. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the relationship, though it ought to have been disclosed, did not reach the threshold for disqualification given its minor scale, its lack of any connection to the arbitration, and its conduct by a different department of the firm.
What distinguishes Jervell is the central and active role assigned to the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest. The Court did not merely cite the Guidelines as background or as a secondary support, it relied on them extensively and substantively as the primary framework for analysing the conflict of interest question. This is a qualitatively different engagement from Skaugen, where international sources played a peripheral role. In Jervell, they drove the analysis.
Thoughts on implications for development of Norwegian arbitration law going forward
The Supreme Court’s increasing willingness to engage with international sources and a denationalised approach carries significant implications for the development of
(2020), s. 1462.
Norwegian arbitration law. The cases examined in this article demonstrate that Norwegian arbitration practice is increasingly recognised as forming part of an international system underpinned by the Model Law, the New York Convention and the principle of comity among nations. This recognition opens the door to greater standardisation of Norwegian arbitration law and practice in line with international standards and allows for the importation and adoption of best practices as they continue to evolve globally.
These developments may also have a positive impact on Norway’s attractiveness as a seat of arbitration, as a court’s willingness to engage with international arbitration practice is an important factor in determining a country’s attractiveness as a seat. 2 For this potential to be realised, however, it is important that the developments are made visible to users of international arbitration. A natural step in this direction would be the adoption of formal rules or guidelines that establish the international approach as official practice, a topic addressed further in the accompanying article on proposed updates to the NAA.
About the authors
Amund Bjøranger Tørum
PARTNER | DR. JURIS
+47 986 42 573
abt@bahr.no
Amund is a leading capacity on contracts and projects and one of the most prominent litigators and arbitration specialists in Norway and the Nordics. His broad background as litigator, arbitrator, professor and in-house counsel enables him to provide sound advice and tailor strategies in a wide range of industries, projects and disputes.
He has acted as counsel and arbitrator in more than 100 arbitrations, which include many of the major arbitral institutions (ICC, DIS, SCC, DIA, SIAC, NOMA, UNCITRAL RULES etc.).
His experience spans over several industries, in particular energy (oil & gas and renewables), offshore, insurance (including marine insurance and reinsurance), decommissioning, shipping, shipbuilding, construction, infrastructure, telecom and finance/derivatives. He has also acted as advisor and counsel in several large projects and disputes related to the defence industry.
ASSOCIATE
+47 948 97 868
frili@bahr.no
Frida is an associate in BAHR’s Dispute Resolution group, where she works on both domestic and international disputes across litigation and arbitration. Her practice spans a range of complex commercial matters, and she has been part of teams handling some of the most high-profile disputes since her joining. Frida holds a Master of Law from the University of Tromsø, where her studies and research focused particularly on arbitration law and practice in Norway.
DISCLAIMER
This publication is provided for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should not rely upon it as a substitute for specific legal advice tailored to your particular circumstances. If you require legal advice on any matter addressed in this publication, please contact a BAHR partner. BAHR accepts no responsibility for any information contained in this publication that may prove to be inaccurate, incomplete, outdated, or incorrect. BAHR excludes all liability (howsoever caused) to you or any third party for any loss or damage arising from the use of, or reliance upon, this publication. Any use of the information contained herein is entirely at your own risk.