Expedited court proceedings in Norway: interim measures and adjudication of the main claim

Interim measures under Norwegian law
Norwegian law distinguishes between two principal forms of interim security:

• arrest, which is used to secure monetary claims; and
• interim injunctions (midlertidig forføyning), which are used to secure claims for something other than payment of money.

In proceedings for interim measures, the claimant will normally need to establish both the underlying claim and a statutory basis for granting interim relief.

Because the court must already consider the underlying claim as part of the application for interim relief, the Norwegian Dispute Act allows either party in certain circumstances to ask the district court to determine the main claim in the same proceedings.

When can the main claim be determined at the same time?
Under Section 32-9 of the Norwegian Dispute Act, the main claim may be brought into the interim proceedings if:

1. the main claim can be properly determined at the same time as the application for interim relief;
2. determining the main claim will not delay the decision on the interim measure; and
3. determining the main claim does not require additional case preparation.

All three conditions must be satisfied.

The mechanism is therefore particularly relevant where the main claim is sufficiently straightforward and can be determined on the basis of the material already available to the court.

A complex dispute requiring extensive disclosure, witness evidence, expert evidence or other additional preparation will normally be less suitable.

The court retains discretion
Even where the statutory conditions are satisfied, the court may decline to determine the main claim.

In particular, if the court concludes that there is no statutory basis for interim relief and only the claimant has requested determination of the main claim, the court shall normally refuse to determine it in the interim proceedings.

This reflects the fact that proceedings concerning interim measures are designed primarily to deal quickly with urgent requests for temporary protection, rather than to replace ordinary civil proceedings.

Both claimant and defendant may nevertheless request determination of the main claim. This can be relevant for a defendant that wants a final resolution rather than a temporary order remaining in place while the underlying dispute continues.

What if the main claim is admitted but not determined?
The court may initially allow the main claim to be brought into the interim proceedings and later conclude that the conditions for simultaneous determination are no longer satisfied.

The court may also decline to determine the claim for other reasons permitted by the Dispute Act.

In that situation, the party that requested determination of the main claim may, within a deadline set by the court, require the claim to continue as a separate action.

If an ordinary action concerning the main claim would fall within the jurisdiction of another court, the court dealing with the interim proceedings may direct that the main claim be heard there.

When can simultaneous adjudication be useful?
The procedure can be particularly useful where:

• urgent interim relief is already required;
• the material facts are relatively clear;
• the dispute turns primarily on a limited legal or contractual issue; and
• the parties and the court already have the material necessary to decide the substantive claim.

In such cases, resolving both the interim application and the underlying dispute in the same proceedings may avoid the need for a separate action and significantly reduce the time and cost of obtaining a final decision.

Whether this is appropriate must nevertheless be assessed in the circumstances of the individual dispute.

***

Originally published 13 October 2024. Last updated 16 August 2026.