Borealis AB v Geogas Trading SA

Borealis AB v Geogas Trading SA

Borealis did not act unreasonably or with actual knowledge of the contamination; its conduct did not break the chain of causation nor constitute a failure to mitigate. Losses claimed were not too remote, and Geogas is liable for damages as assessed.

Parties
Claimant: Borealis AB; Defendant: Geogas Trading SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for claimant
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Damages, Causation, Remoteness, Mitigation, Quantum

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Borealis AB

Claimant

Geogas Trading SA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Borealis failed to react appropriately to the pH alarm, breaking the chain of causation or failing to mitigate loss
  2. 2 Whether losses claimed by Borealis are too remote to be recoverable
  3. 3 Whether Borealis failed to mitigate its losses regarding the cavern's replenishment

Ratio Decidendi

Borealis did not act unreasonably or with actual knowledge of the contamination; its conduct did not break the chain of causation nor constitute a failure to mitigate. Losses claimed were not too remote, and Geogas is liable for damages as assessed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimant

Orders

  • Geogas to pay Borealis damages as assessed: €1,250,000 for supplier repair costs, €75,000 for personnel costs, €6,000 for equipment operating costs, €19,066 for warehousing corroded tubes, €15,000 for spare parts, €36,101 for September 2004 loss of profit, €2,902,237 for September 2003 loss of profit, €2.75 million...
  • Geogas at liberty to take delivery of corroded tubes or Borealis to dispose after a set period