Brink’s Global Services Korea Ltd. v. Woowon Sea & Air Co. Ltd.

Brink’s Global Services Korea Ltd. v. Woowon Sea & Air Co. Ltd.

The Federal Court has jurisdiction: the claim arises from carriage under a multimodal through bill of lading and meets the ITO criteria and falls within Federal Courts Act s.22; subsection 46(1)(a) MLA applies because the actual or intended port of discharge was in Canada, permitting Canadian proceedings despite a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2022 FC 1512
Parties
Plaintiff: Brink’s Global Services Korea Ltd.; Plaintiff: Brink’s Global Services International, Inc.; Defendant, Appellant: Woowon Sea & Air Co. Ltd.; Defendant, Respondent: Binex Line Corp., John Doe Binex Employee, Jane Doe Binex Employee and other persons unknown to the plaintiffs currently or formerly employed by Binex; Third Party: A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S; Third Party: Canadian National Railway Company
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Maritime Carriage and Jurisdiction Dispute / Appeal From Case Management Judge Dismissal of Motion to Stay (jurisdictional/preliminary Motion)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except that the Case Management Judge’s cost order in favour of Binex was set aside
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction Simpliciter, Forum Non Conveniens, Marine Liability Act S.46, Through Bill of Lading, Hague Visby Rules, Costs
Source Language
english
Maritime Law Civil Procedure Contract Law International Carriage Jurisdiction Simpliciter Forum Non Conveniens Marine Liability Act S.46 Through Bill of Lading +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brink’s Global Services Korea Ltd.

Plaintiff

Brink’s Global Services International, Inc.

Plaintiff

Woowon Sea & Air Co. Ltd.

Defendant, Appellant

Binex Line Corp., John Doe Binex Employee, Jane Doe Binex Employee and other persons unknown to the plaintiffs currently or formerly employed by Binex

Defendant, Respondent

A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S

Third Party

Canadian National Railway Company

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Maritime Carriage and Jurisdiction Dispute / Appeal From Case Management Judge Dismissal of Motion to Stay (jurisdictional/preliminary Motion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Federal Court has jurisdiction simpliciter over claim arising from multimodal through bill of lading
  2. 2 Whether s.46(1) of the Marine Liability Act permits Canadian proceedings despite foreign jurisdiction clause
  3. 3 Whether forum non conveniens requires stay in favour of Korean courts

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court has jurisdiction: the claim arises from carriage under a multimodal through bill of lading and meets the ITO criteria and falls within Federal Courts Act s.22; subsection 46(1)(a) MLA applies because the actual or intended port of discharge was in Canada, permitting Canadian proceedings despite a foreign forum clause, so the CMJ correctly dismissed Woowon’s stay motion; only the CMJ’s costs award in favour of Binex (which had not sought costs) was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except that the Case Management Judge’s cost order in favour of Binex was set aside

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed except that the CMJ’s cost order in favour of Binex payable by Woowon is set aside
  • Brink’s awarded lump sum costs of 7500 CAD, all-inclusive, in the cause in the main appeal, payable by Woowon