A and B were cohabitants from 2001-2017. They could not agree on a financial settlement after their break-up. On 23 October 2017, B filed a claim for financial settlement in the Øst-Finnmark District Court. On 19 March 2018, before the main hearing was held, B petitioned the District Court for the arrest of the fishing vessel X which was registered in A's name. It was argued that there was danger in the case of a stay (periculum in mora), so the District Court had to issue a ruling without an oral hearing: see the Disputes Act, § 32-7, para 2.

On 21 March 2018, the District Court issued a ruling permitting the vessel's arrest. The Court did so on the understanding that the vessel could only be arrested in order to secure maritime claims [listed in § 92 of the Maritime Code, which gives domestic effect in Norway to art 1.1 of the Arrest Convention 1952], and on the basis that the conditions for arrest had been met - namely, B claimed to be the co-owner of the vessel, and security grounds had been established.

On 24 April 2018, the District Court ruled, among other things, that the fishing vessel was solely owned by A. On 15 March 2019, the Hålogaland Court of Appeal confirmed that the fishing vessel was not jointly owned by A and B.

On 16 March 2022, A took out a summons at the Indre og Østre Finnmark District Court claiming compensation for the unjustified arrest of the fishing vessel. A referred to § 32-11, para 1, of the Disputes Act [which provides for compensation where interim security measures turn out to be unfounded], and demanded compensation for the value of the lost cod fishing season in 2018 while the vessel was under arrest. The parties agreed that the fishing vessel was too small to be covered by the special restrictions in the Maritime Code on arrest of ships that are subject to registration: see § 11, para 3, of the Maritime Code.

The District Court found in favour of B. A appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal upheld in part.

It is clear that the District Court issued an arrest warrant on 21 March 2018 without an oral hearing and later revoked the warrant. Furthermore, it is clear that B's claim that B was the co-owner of the fishing vessel was not upheld. Given that the claim for co-ownership was the main claim B had to prove in the arrest case, B is liable for damages.

It is not in dispute that the parties and the District Court, during the hearing of the arrest case, were of the opinion that the arrest could only be made if the main claim was a claim under maritime law: see § 92 of the Maritime Code. Arrests cannot be made in ships to secure monetary claims in matters relating to the financial settlement between former cohabitants, but claims based on property rights or co-ownership are considered maritime law claims: see §§ 92.o and 92.p [arts 1.1.o and 1.1.p of the Arrest Convention 1952].

That this was the case is also evident from the District Court's ruling of 21 March 2018:

For the arrest of a ship, the main claim must be a claim under maritime law in accordance with § 92, first paragraph of the Maritime Code. The claim in this case relates to the plaintiff demanding the arrest of a fishing vessel of which she states that she is a co-owner as a result of the fact that she made significant contributions at the time of the purchase, to cover claims on the occasion of the dissolution of a financial partnership as a result of a break-up. ...

The plaintiff claims to have a claim in the fishing boat '[vessel name]'. On the basis of the claim and the documents in the case, and that there is a probable cause for security, the court finds that the conditions for arrest have been met, cf. Disputes Act §§ 33-1, 33-2 and 33-3.

In the Court of Appeal's view, the subsequent arrest warrant also shows that the arrest application was not based on any requirements other than co-ownership of the vessel.

The Court therefore finds that B is liable for damages for the loss that A suffered as a result of the arrest of the fishing vessel being unjustified. The Court concludes that A has suffered financial loss, but that it is significantly less than A calculated it to be. After an overall discretionary assessment, the Court finds that the loss that A is entitled to recover is NOK 150,000 in total, plus interest and costs.