AK Steel Corporation v. Acelormittal Mines Canada Inc.

AK Steel Corporation v. Acelormittal Mines Canada Inc.

The Court held that the dispute fell within Canadian maritime law and Federal Court jurisdiction; the freezing and consequent damage were caused by the pre-loading condition of the cargo (QCM’s breach of contract and warranty that cargo would be free-flowing); QCM was aware of the non-conformance before discharge and was not prejudiced by lack of joint survey or by timing of notice; accordingly AK Steel was entitled to recover the full claimed amounts under the contractual indemnities and incorporated terms.

Citation
2014 FC 118
Parties
Plaintiff/voyage Charterer/buyer: AK STEEL CORPORATION; Defendant/shipper (québec Cartier Mining): ACELORMITTAL MINES CANADA INC.
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
31 January 2014
Procedural Posture
Maritime Contract / Cargo Claim / Final Judgment (reasons for Judgment and Judgment)
Outcome
Action maintained. Judgment for plaintiff AK Steel Corporation against defendant Acelormittal Mines Canada Inc.
Legal Topics
Cargo Damage, Bill of Lading Incorporation, Indemnity, Breach of Contract, Notice of Breach, Spoliation of Evidence, Demurrage
Source Language
English
Maritime Law Admiralty Contract Law Conflict of Laws Cargo Damage Bill of Lading Incorporation Indemnity Breach 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AK STEEL CORPORATION

Plaintiff/voyage Charterer/buyer

ACELORMITTAL MINES CANADA INC.

Defendant/shipper (québec Cartier Mining)

Procedural Posture

Maritime Contract / Cargo Claim / Final Judgment (reasons for Judgment and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Federal Court has jurisdiction over a dispute arising from sale and carriage of a cargo of iron ore pellets
  2. 2 Whether the freezing of cargo and consequent ship damage was caused by pre-loading condition of the cargo (shipper's breach) or by the carrier's failure to properly care for, load, carry or discharge the cargo
  3. 3 Whether QCM is liable under the bill of lading and contract of affreightment for costs of discharge, demurrage and repairs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the dispute fell within Canadian maritime law and Federal Court jurisdiction; the freezing and consequent damage were caused by the pre-loading condition of the cargo (QCM’s breach of contract and warranty that cargo would be free-flowing); QCM was aware of the non-conformance before discharge and was not prejudiced by lack of joint survey or by timing of notice; accordingly AK Steel was entitled to recover the full claimed amounts under the contractual indemnities and incorporated terms.

Court Disposition

Action maintained. Judgment for plaintiff AK Steel Corporation against defendant Acelormittal Mines Canada Inc.

Orders

  • Defendant Acelormittal Mines Canada Inc. to pay plaintiff Canadian $224,321.97
  • Simple interest on that sum at 5% per annum from 1 January 2009 to judgment; post-judgment interest on judgment debt (principal and interest) at same rate