This document gallery contains the legal records that underpin the story we are telling. By providing access to the original case documents, we want to give readers a direct look into the legal proceedings and the evidence that supports the facts of the matter.
All the documents being published here are publicly available in accordance with section 6–9 and section 14 of the Dispute Act.
Below is a "best effort" English translation of the decision from Hedmarken Mediation Board 22.03.2022:<
The parties did not reach a settlement. The complainant and the respondent have called for a judgment. However, the Mediation Board finds that the case is too difficult and insufficiently informed that there is no basis for a judgment. The case must therefore be discontinued, cf. section 6-11 third paragraph of the Dispute Act, cf. section 6-10 fourth paragraph.
Below is a "best effort" English translation of the verdict from Østre Innlandet District Court 15.05.2023:
Below is a "best effort" English translation of the decision from Eidsivating Court of Appeal 07.12.2023:
In the Court of Appeal's view, there are no grounds for consenting to the filing of the appeal. The case concerns a claim with very limited economic value for the appellants, and the costs of further processing of the case in the court system will clearly exceed the value of the object of the appeal. Proportionality considerations thus apply with full weight. The case has no interest in principle, and the outcome of the case depends to a significant extent on a specific assessment of the evidence as to whether the decision to remove the access was valid. The same applies to the district court's assessment of who should cover the costs of the reversal. There are not considered to be such weaknesses in the District Court's decision or case proceedings as to justify granting consent to the appeal. The District Court's failure to discuss public law aspects of the case cannot be regarded as a defect in the decision that should lead to consent to the appeal being granted. The appellants argue that points 2 and 3 of the District Court's conclusion entail a measure - the construction of an access road - which is not lawful under the zoning plan. It is claimed that the obligation to apply for the construction of an access road means that points 2 and 3 of the judgment cannot be upheld. The Court of Appeal refers to the fact that points 2 and 3 of the judgment cannot be considered to involve a new measure, but the removal of soil, grass and curbs to return the area to its previous use. It is not a question of constructing an access road, but of enabling access by car to the area, in accordance with previous use.
Accordingly, the appeal is not granted.
The Respondents have won the case and, pursuant to the general rule in section 20-2, first paragraph, of the Dispute Act, are entitled to reimbursement of their costs in the case.
The Respondents have claimed reimbursement of legal costs for the Court of Appeal in the amount of NOK 60,000 including VAT for 24 hours of work on the case. The specification of the hours spent is considered to satisfy the requirement for a statement of costs pursuant to section 20-5, fourth paragraph. There has been extensive exchange of pleadings for the decision on the question of advancing the appeal, but Court of Appeal nevertheless finds that the claim goes beyond what can be considered reasonable and necessary costs, cf. section 20-5 first paragraph of the Dispute Act. By way of comparison, reference is made to the fact that the fee claim for the District Court after the main hearing was completed was NOK 135,000 incl. VAT. Case costs for the Court of Appeal are therefore awarded on a discretionary basis for 16 hours of work, totaling NOK 40,000 including VAT.
The respondents' claims are directed against HS Eie AS alone, and not against the co-ownership. In the District Court also imposed sole liability for legal costs on HS Eie AS, without this being further justified in the the judgment. As a starting point, both appellants should be ordered to pay damages for respondents' legal costs. Since the Respondents' claim for legal costs is directed solely only against HS Eie AS, it could be relevant to reduce the awarded legal costs, based on a assumption that parts of the legal costs claim must be related to the co-ownership's involvement in the the case. However, the Court of Appeal finds that the legal costs in this case must be deemed to have been incurred in their entirety as a result of HS Eie AS' dispositions alone. It is in reality HS Eie AS' interests that have been sought to be safeguarded throughout the legal process. The Respondents' legal costs must therefore must therefore also in reality be considered to have been incurred by HS Eie AS alone, and not in any way on behalf of the co-ownership.
The decision is unanimous.
Below is a "best effort" English translation of the decision from the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court of Norway 02.02.2024:
The respondent has claimed NOK 27 390 excluding value added tax as legal costs for the Appeals Committee. The claim for costs is directed against HS Eie AS alone. The claim is upheld. The appeal is rejected. HS Eie AS shall pay to (my good neighbor) and Norsin Invest AS jointly NOK 34 237 in legal costs before the Supreme Court within two weeks of notification of this judgement.
Below is a "best effort" English translation of the decision regarding compulsory execution from Østre Innlandet District Court 18.07.2024:
As stated in the judgment from Østre Innlandet District Court and the decision from Eidsivating Court of Appeal, there are no restrictions on the public reproduction of these. I assume that the same applies to the decision from Hedmarken Mediation Board and the ruling from the Appeals Committee of the Supreme Court of Norway. I also rely on the Act relating to mediation and procedure in civil disputes (The Dispute Act), the dispute act chapter 6 section 6-9 and the dispute act chapoter 11 section 14 , which deals with the public right of access and inspection in civil disputes.