Drew Brown Ltd. v. The ‘Orient Trader’

Drew Brown Ltd. v. The ‘Orient Trader’

Majority held the bills of lading selected United States law as the proper law of the contract; under that law the carrier’s liability for fire is limited by the U.S. Fire Statute unless the claimant proves a causal connection between the deviation and the fire; no causal connection was proved, so carrier not liable for cargo damage; the new Jason/general average clause entitled the carrier to general average contribution and the carrier is entitled to interest on the general average adjustment from the adjustment date to judgment.

Citation
[1974] SCR 1286
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Drew Brown Limited; Defendant/respondent: The Ship "Orient Trader" and her owners
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 1972
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada (admiralty/contract) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal and Cross‑appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Proper Law of the Contract, Deviation, Rescission/repudiation of Contract, Fire Statute (limitation of Liability), General Average Contribution, Interest on Maritime Claims
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Contract Law Conflict of Laws Admiralty/carriage of Goods by Sea International Law Proper Law of the Contract Deviation Rescission/repudiation of Contract +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Drew Brown Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

The Ship "Orient Trader" and her owners

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Exchequer Court of Canada (admiralty/contract) / Supreme Court of Canada Judgment on Appeal and Cross‑appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bills of lading choice‑of‑law clause makes United States law the proper law of the contract
  2. 2 Whether the carrier’s decision to proceed to Ashtabula constituted an unreasonable deviation and whether that deviation rescinded the contract
  3. 3 Whether an unreasonable deviation deprives the carrier of protection under the U.S. Fire Statute absent causal connection between deviation and fire

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the bills of lading selected United States law as the proper law of the contract; under that law the carrier’s liability for fire is limited by the U.S. Fire Statute unless the claimant proves a causal connection between the deviation and the fire; no causal connection was proved, so carrier not liable for cargo damage; the new Jason/general average clause entitled the carrier to general average contribution and the carrier is entitled to interest on the general average adjustment from the adjustment date to judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross‑appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Cross‑appeal allowed with costs