AMS Ameropa Marketing and Sales AG v Ocean Unity Navigation INC
[2024] EWCA Civ 1312
AMS Ameropa Marketing Sales AG & Anor v Ocean Unity Navigation Inc
19 December 2023
[2023] EWHC 3264 (Comm)
High Court
A ship damaged some soybeans. The ship's owners admitted fault but argued the company claiming damages shouldn't get them all. The judge agreed the soybeans were damaged and the company did what they could to fix things, giving them some money for their losses but not all extra costs.
Key Facts
- •Damage to a cargo of 50,000 metric tons of soybeans during shipment from Louisiana to Egypt.
- •Owners admitted breach of contract for excessive fuel heating causing damage.
- •Dispute over Claimants' title to sue, causation, and quantum of damages.
- •Claimants sought damages for loss of value of approximately 3,600MT of rejected cargo sold in a salvage sale.
- •Oilex, the lawful holder of the bills of lading, assigned its rights to the First Claimant.
- •The Second Claimant was the cargo insurer.
- •Disputes centered on the extent of damage caused by the Owners' breach and whether the Claimants reasonably mitigated their losses.
- •Expert evidence was presented by both sides regarding the extent and cause of damage.
Legal Principles
Title to sue as assignee of bill of lading holder.
The Baltic Strait [2018] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 33; The Sanix Ace [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 465
Causation and remoteness of damage in contract.
Borealis v Geogas Trading [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483
Mitigation of loss in contract.
Chitty on Contracts (para 29-096)
Burden of proof in establishing causation and unreasonable failure to mitigate.
Borealis v Geogas Trading [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 483
Article IV rule 5(a) of the Hague Visby Rules (Limitation of Liability)
Hague Visby Rules
Outcomes
First Claimant has title to sue.
The assignment from Oilex was sufficiently broad, and Oilex's recovery from the First Claimant did not preclude a claim against the Owners.
70-80MT of cargo was physically damaged due to the Owners' breach.
Based on expert evidence, particularly Dr. Rodrigues' testimony, and analysis of the rejected cargo.
Claimants acted reasonably in mitigating their losses.
The salvage sale was a reasonable response to the damage given the circumstances, including the uncertainty regarding the cargo's condition and potential for further deterioration.
USD 293,755.10 awarded to the First Claimant.
Represents the difference between the sound CIF value and the salvage sale price of the rejected cargo. Claims for ancillary costs were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of Oilex incurring those costs.
Similar Cases
JB Cocoa Sdn Bhd & Ors v Maersk Line AS
[2023] EWHC 2203 (Comm)
Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV (previously known as Glencore Agriculture BV)
[2024] UKSC 14
Mitsui & Co (USA) Inc v Asia-Potash International Investment (Guangzhou) Co Ltd
[2023] EWHC 1119 (Comm)
Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S
[2024] EWHC 2494 (Comm)