Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T02:01:40.897Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Norway

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2020

Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The law of prescription regarding tort claims in Norwegian law is regulated in the general act on prescription of claims. The origin of the provision is the former act on prescription of claims of 1896. The subject of prescription has not generated much discussion over the years. The major literature on the field is primarily one comment to the statutory law and a doctoral thesis on the starting point of the prescription period, apart from a few other contributions. A few minor doctrinal works analyse the special problems of prescription regarding tort claims.

DEFINITION OF PRESCRIPTION

The definition of prescription under Norwegian tort law is very much in accordance with the definition‘a legal institution that prevents P from enforcing an alleged right against D because of the running of a specified period of time on the tort claim‘.

The claim is a right to damages for harm caused that comes into being once the defendant has committed the tortious act. This is the general starting point, but there are some modifications, see infra 27– 30.

THE NATURE OF PRESCRIPTION AND ITS EFFECTS

The Norwegian concept of prescription only affects the claimant's right to compensation when not suing within the time period. Hence, the material obligation for the defendant exists after the prescription period in the sense that a debtor who mistakenly has paid a claim after the prescription period has expired, cannot claim restitution based on unjust enrichment. The effect of barring the claim is considered to be material, having effect both within and outside courts. It is not merely a procedural defence for the defendant. In fact, one may on principle file a claim after the prescription period has expired, because the civil litigation rules accept the plaintiff's pretention of having a valid claim. In the doctrinal literature the prescription claim is in general perceived as a material, not a procedural matter.

Type
Chapter
Information
Prescription in Tort Law
Analytical and Comparative Perspectives
, pp. 483 - 514
Publisher: Intersentia
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×