Nova Scotia Power Inc. v. AMCI Export Corporation

Nova Scotia Power Inc. v. AMCI Export Corporation

Paragraph 8 of the amended defence does not disclose an arguable defence because the contractual obligations were sequential (respondent's obligation to confirm loadport and availability preceded applicant's obligation to contract vessels), the respondent failed to plead sufficient factual particulars to show a bona fide defence that the applicant lacked capacity to lift coal, and therefore summary judgment is appropriate striking paragraph 8.

Citation
2008 NSSC 49
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: Nova Scotia Power Incorporated; Respondent/defendant: AMCI Export Corporation
Court
Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment (post Pleadings)
Outcome
Application for summary judgment granted in respect of paragraph 8 of the defendant's amended defence
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Concurrent Obligations, Force Majeure, Failure to Deliver, Options Contracts, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Summary Judgment Concurrent Obligations Force Majeure Failure to Deliver Options Contracts +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nova Scotia Power Incorporated

Applicant/plaintiff

AMCI Export Corporation

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment (post Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 8 of the amended defence discloses an arguable issue for trial
  2. 2 Whether the parties' obligations were concurrent or sequential
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to provide vessels for designated laycans

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 8 of the amended defence does not disclose an arguable defence because the contractual obligations were sequential (respondent's obligation to confirm loadport and availability preceded applicant's obligation to contract vessels), the respondent failed to plead sufficient factual particulars to show a bona fide defence that the applicant lacked capacity to lift coal, and therefore summary judgment is appropriate striking paragraph 8.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment granted in respect of paragraph 8 of the defendant's amended defence

Orders

  • Paragraph 8 of the amended defence struck as disclosing no arguable issue
  • Summary judgment granted to plaintiff with respect to paragraph 8 of the amended defence