The former director of an Irish-registered equities firm should be required to use Norway and not Ireland to fight proceedings he has brought against Dublin headquartered Zurich plc alleging interference with his economic relations, the High Court has heard.
Arne Vigeland, who was removed as director of Dalkey-registered SJI Equities Ltd last January, is claiming damages for tortious interference in his business affairs arising out of a €1million legal costs order made against him by the Norwegian courts on December 9th last.
That order arose out of unsuccessful proceedings in Norway by SJI against a number of former board members of Norwegian household renovations company, RenoNorden ASA.
It was claimed that RenoNorden provided SJI's parent, the Belize-registered investment vehicle SJI Investments Ltd, with incorrect information when it (SJI) bought €5m in shares in RenoNorden in 2017.
Mr Vigeland, who lives in Nesoya in the Asker Municipality of Norway, said that following the share acquisition, SJI discovered the financial position of RenoNorden was much worse than had been revealed beforehand. RenoNorden went bankrupt in September 2017, he said.
His proceedings against RenoNorden in Norway were ultimately unsuccessful.
However, Mr Vigeland was then sued in Norway by Zurich for the recovery of the €1m it had paid for legal costs in the RenoNorden case. Zurich had indemnified that firm's shareholders and directors for that purpose.
Zurich also got a €1 million freezing order on Mr Vigeland's assets on the basis that he had wrongfully transferred the RenoNorden action from SJI Investments to SJI Equities in order to evade any costs order that might be made in favour of the insurer.
Mr Vigeland said SJI Investments decided not to fund the RenoNorden lawsuit any further after the costs of the claim overran expectations.
Mr Vigeland later tried to have SJI Equities liquidated in Ireland as he said it was insolvent but he said the appointed liquidator had to resign due to his inability to obtain an indemnity from SJI investments.
Last February, Zurich got an order in the Norwegian courts freezing Mr Vigeland’s assets and placing a €1m charge over his home in Asker.
He then brought proceedings in Ireland against Zurich. He also got a stay in Norway on further proceedings by Zurich for an order requiring him to pay the €1 million.
The stay was to remain in place pending a decision in Ireland over which of the two jurisdictions should deal with his tortious interference case.
Zurich asked the High Court to rule that Norway and not Ireland was the proper jurisdiction for the case.
It claimed that Mr Vigeland has been generally seeking to frustrate Zurich's Norway branch in recouping the legal costs it paid for the RenoNorden case.
It also claimed he brought the Irish proceedings as a tactical manoeuvre following the legal moves in Norway to make him personally liable for those legal costs.
Mr Vigeland opposed Zurich's jurisdiction application.
On Thursday, Mr Justice Michael Twomey heard arguments from Edward Farrelly SC, for Zurich, and Kelley Smith SC, for Mr Vigeland, on whether the High Court should decline to hear Mr Vigeland's proceedings because the courts of Norway should have exclusive jurisdiction.
The court heard that the central issue was whether Ireland or Norway was the correct jurisdiction in accordance with a treaty on jurisdiction and recognition/enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, known as the Lugano Convention.
Mr Justice Twomey reserved judgment.
