Ansa McAl, Alstons Shipping defeat German company’s claim for $58m

From left, Anthony N Sabga III, Ansa McAl group CEO, A Norman Sabga, executive chairman, and Frances Bain- Cumberbatch, chief legal and external affairs officer at a meeting in May. The High Court ruled in favour of Ansa McAl and Alston Shipping in a $58 million claim filed by German shipping company Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft. - Photo by Faith Ayoung

THE High Court has granted summary judgment in favour of Ansa McAl Ltd and Alstons Shipping Ltd, striking out a multimillion-dollar claim brought against them by German shipping company Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft.

Justice Margaret Mohammed found that Hapag-Lloyd had “no realistic prospect” of succeeding in its claim to recover $58 million for allegedly shipping hazardous fuel that leaked in 2021 and contaminated vessels and port facilities in Spain and Jamaica.

Mohammed ruled that the company failed to plead any facts showing that Ansa McAl or Alstons Shipping obtained an unjust benefit or gain.

She held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment, finding that the pleaded case disclosed no basis for holding Ansa or Alstons liable. She also held that unjust enrichment requires proof of an actual benefit to the defendant, which it found entirely lacking in Hapag-Lloyd’s submissions.

In her ruling, Mohammed held, “The claimant has no realistic prospect of proving that its claim for damages for breach of contract against the first and second defendants trading as Ansa Logistics.”

According to the judge, the documents demonstrated that Alstons Shipping had a realistic prospect of success in proving it acted as agent for Hapag-Lloyd when it made the bookings and the bills of lading.

She also held that Hapag-Lloyd also had no realistic prospect of successfully proving that Alstons breached any common law duty or was negligent as it related to the goods in the containers, as its participation was limited as an agent.

“In my opinion, the claimant has no realistic prospect of successfully obtaining any relief based on its claim for restitution, as it has failed to plead any facts that the first and second defendants obtained any unjust benefit or gain as a consequence of the incidents.”

She also rejected Hapag- Lloyd's attempt to seek restitution for cleanup costs and losses.

In its case against Ansa Logistics, Alston Shipping – both trading as Ansa Logistics – and West Indian Logistics, Hapag-Lloyd sought damages for alleged breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation and and failing to meet their common law duties in transporting the goods.

The shipping company claimed that Ansa Logistics misrepresented the goods shipped under three separate bookings made in 2021 as non-hazardous. The goods, identified in the bookings as "Fuel Oil in Flexibag (Non-hazardous)," were allegedly later found to be incorrectly classified.

Hapag-Lloyd asserted that the goods were hazardous and improperly packed into flexitanks, leading to the alleged incidents of pollution from leaking containers, which allegedly caused environmental damage at various ports.

Hapag-Lloyd also alleged that the defendants failed to meet legal requirements, inaccurately declared the goods' weight and characteristics, and did not obtain consent for transporting hazardous cargo. They argued that the flexitanks were overfilled, leading to structural damage to containers.

The company sought a total of over US$7.2 million and EUR 1.1 million in indemnities and damages, plus additional claims for freight costs, interest, and legal fees. The lawsuit accuses the defendants of breach of contract, negligence, misrepresentation, and failing to meet their common law duties in transporting the goods.

In seeking to have the claims against them struck out, Ansa Logistics denied liability, arguing that the company primarily provided brokerage and logistical support services, rather than directly handling the shipments. They claimed they were not parties to the contract of carriage with Hapag-Lloyd, which they assert was between the claimant, West Indian Logistics, and another company called Mundra Oil.

According to their defence, the Alstons acted as agents for Hapag-Lloyd under an agency agreement, responsible only for marketing, sales, and booking cargo, and not for the shipment itself. On the issue of the goods being misrepresented as "non-hazardous," the defendants contended that the description was provided by Avani Environmental Group, the company that sourced the goods for shipment. They argued that they reasonably relied on this description and had no knowledge of any discrepancies with the Harmonised System (HS) Code used to classify the goods. They also contended that they were not involved in the loading or inspection of the goods before shipment, nor did they guarantee the accuracy of the weights and volumes listed in the bookings and bills of lading. They claimed that any weight information was supplied by Avani and the transport company, and Alstons merely uploaded this data to the claimant's system.

Ansa and Alstons denied responsibility for the pollution incidents or any damages resulting from the shipments, arguing that the contract for carriage existed only between Hapag-Lloyd and West Indian Logistics. They further maintained that Hapag-Lloyd was not entitled to

In addition to striking out the claim, the court ordered Hapag-Lloyd to pay both the costs of the summary judgment application and the costs of the overall action. The value of the claim, after currency conversion, was assessed at $58,131,050.80, resulting in prescribed costs of $524,655.25, of which 55 per cent ($288,560.39) was payable because the matter had passed the first case management conference, the ruling said.

Shiv Sharma, Asif Hosein-Shah and Nyree Alfonso represented Ansa and Alstons, while Marguerite Woodstock-Riley, KC, and Curtis Cave represented Hapag-Lloyd.