IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corporation,
2006 NSSC 332
Date: 20061106
Docket: SH 220343
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Sable Offshore Energy Inc., as agent for and on behalf of the Working Interest Owners of the Sable Offshore Energy Project, ExxonMobil Canada Properties, Shell Canada Limited, Imperial Oil Resources, Mosbacher Operating Ltd., and Pengrowth Corporation; ExxonMobil Canada Properties as operator of the Sable Offshore Energy Project
Plaintiffs
and
Ameron International Corporation; Ameron (UK) Limited; Ameron B.V.; Allcolour Paint Limited; Amercoat Canada; Rubyco Ltd.; Danroh Inc.; Serious Business Inc.; Barrier Limited; Parker Brothers Contracting Limited; Rko Steel Limited; Cherubini Metal Works Limited; Comstock Canada Ltd.; Adam Clark Company Ltd.; A.B. Mechanical Limited; A & G Crane Rentals Limited carrying on business as A & G Crane Limited; A.M.L. Painting Limited; Argo Protective Coatings Incorporated; Allsteel Coating Limited; Mills Painting & Sandblasting Limited
Defendants
and
Amec E & C Services Limited, successor to Agra Monenco Inc., in their own right, Kellogg Brown & Root, a division of Haliburton Group Canada Inc. and Amec Black & McDonald Limited operating as BMS Offshore, successor to BMS Offshore Limited, in their own right and/or collectively operating as BBA, a joint venture
Third Parties
LIBRARY HEADING
LIBRARY HEADING
Judge: The Honourable Justice Suzanne M. Hood
Heard: July 18, 2006 in Halifax, Nova Scotia
Written Decision: November 6, 2006
Subject: CPR 14.25(1)(a), striking of pleadings on the basis of no reasonable cause of action or, alternatively, inadequacy of the pleadings. Economic loss claims after Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 36 v. Bird Construction Co., [1995] 1 S.C.R. 85.
Summary: Plaintiffs claim for damages arising from paint failures on the Sable Offshore Energy Project’s onshore and offshore facilities. Two of the defendants seek to strike one of the claims against them, a negligence claim.
Issue: 1.1. Is there a claim for pure economic loss for a non-dangerous product or defect?
2. Does the claim fall within Winnipeg Condo: are the pleadings adequate?
3. Is this a claim for economic loss or property damage?
4. Is Junior Books Ltd. v. Veitchi Co. Ltd., [1982] 3 All ER 201 (H.L.) good law in Canada? It allowed a claim for economic loss where there was no personal injury or damage to property.
Result: It is not plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed.
THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION.QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.