Wilhelm Eger Matheson (born 5 May 1955) is a Norwegian Supreme Court Justice. Matheson took office in November 2009.[1]
Contents |
Matheson was born in Oslo [2], was divorced once and married again, with two children from each marriage.[3]
Wilhelm Matheson graduated with the cand.jur. degree at the University of Oslo in 1982. He has been employed as higher executive officer and legal adviser in the Law Department of the Norwegian Ministry of Justice and as guest researcher at the Max Planck institute in Freiburg, Germany. In the period between 1987 and 1988, Matheson served as deputy judge at district recorder office of Lier, Røyken and Hurum. In 1989 he was employed as deputy advocate in the lawyer firm Mellbye, Schjoldager, Sejersted, Tenden. Between 1990 and 2009 he was employed as lawyer and partner in Wiersholm, before he entered the role as supreme court justice[1].
Matheson was appointed Supreme Court Justice the 31st of October 2008 together with Bergljot Webster and Erik Møse. Th process around the 2008 appointments were criticised by professor of comparative politics at the University of Bergen, Gunnar Grendstad for "lack of transparency."[3] Journalist Hanne Skartveit (employed in Verdens Gang) tried to push the three newly appointed judges to reveal their political stands in a selection of matters of public interest.[4] Matheson (and his two new colleagues), however, did not accept the argumentation of the critics and refused to bind themselves to positions which later could become subject to Supreme Court considerations.[3]
Matheson expresses belief in the ideal of unbiased judges, but he also finds it self-evident that decisions made in the court of law to some extent expresses the attitudes of the judges, not "the so-called true law".[3]
Until January 2011, Matheson has dissented in two Supreme Court decisions: One (in January 2010) regarding the demand from a kiosk-company demanding compensation for the loss of income Public Roads Administration in the aftermath of a landslide blocking a nearby road (and the kiosks source of income). The majority of three justices passed judgement in favour of the government, while the dissenting justices (counting two) argued that the government ought to be seen as responsible for the company's loss of income. Matheson wrote this dissent[5].
In the second case, of March 2010, Matheson was the lone dissenter against four justices in a case regarding compensation for non-pecuniary damages: The actor Gøril Mauseth demanded compensation from the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK) in the aftermath of the screening of a nude scene including Mauseth from the movie Brent av frost, in conflict with a contract stipulating that this scene was not to be used in the purpose of marketin. The majority of four justices passed judgement in favour of Mauseth, against Matheson's lone dissent in favour of NRK[6].
|