Aegon Unión Aseguradora de Seguros y Reaseguros SA (the plaintiff), an insurance company acting under an assignment of rights, claimed for damage to a cargo of 225 boxes of men's jackets owned by Inditex SA (the insured). The cargo was carried under a combined transport bill of lading in a container from Dalian, China, to Algeciras, Spain, to be delivered at the insured’s stores in Coruña, Spain. The jackets were contaminated by thiourea dioxide coming from another container while onboard the MV Hussum, causing their total loss. The lawsuit was filed against Birkart (Far East) Ltd as the forwarding agent, AP Moller as the carrier and Maersk Line España SA (Maersk España) as consignee or representative of the carrier at the port of destination.

Maersk España appeared in the process, Birkart did not, and AP Moller did later. Maersk España alleged it was not liable for damages, and, in case of being held liable, invoked limitation of liability according to the Hague Rules. The first instance Court rejected the defences and ordered the defendant to pay compensation in full. The plaintiff and Maersk España appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal modified the decision releasing Maersk España from liability, stating that it was not entitled to be brought to process as a defendant (falta de legitimación pasiva) and affirmed the rest of the decision. AP Moller appeared at this stage of the process and recurred the decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC), arguing an infraction of arts 1.a and 1.b of the Hague Rules, asserting that it did not appear in the bill of lading, it was not the carrier and was not involved in the transport of this cargo. The plaintiff also recurred in cassation alleging infraction of local laws.

Held: The SC revoked the Court of Appeal's decision. The SC found that there was no evidence that AP Moller was involved in this carriage. Maersk Line, the name that appeared in the relevant documents, was the trading name of the carrier, but there was no evidence that it corresponded to AP Moller, nor that the latter was the carrier, nor that there was a community of interest between these companies. Therefore, there was no reason to hold this company as a defendant nor to order it to pay compensation.

Regarding the recourse of cassation of the plaintiff, the SC also revoked the decision and held Maersk España liable. The SC made reference to jurisprudential doctrine that stated that the liability attributed to a representative acting on behalf of the carrier is also applicable to the consignee as representative of the carrier regarding that specific cargo. However, Maersk España was entitled to limit its liability according to the Hague Rules. The plaintiff argued that the limitation of liability must be established according to the Hague-Visby Rules. The photocopies of a bill of lading submitted by the plaintiff with the lawsuit contained a clause stating that the Hague-Visby Rules applied when they are of mandatory application at the port of unloading, in this case, Algeciras, Spain. However, the defendant submitted the original bill of lading, which in cl 5.3.a established that the carrier's liability shall be determined in accordance with the Hague-Visby Rules if they were compulsorily applicable at the place of reception or port of loading in respect of the first maritime phase of the transport on board the ocean vessel or, in all other cases, in accordance with the Hague Rules. As there was no evidence that China had ratified the Hague-Visby Rules, the Hague Rules applied. Therefore, the SC applied art 4.5 of the Hague Rules and fixed the limitation liability at £100 per package.

Maersk España also alleged inherent defect, quality or defect of the goods and insufficiency of packing according to arts 4.2.m and 4.2.n of the Hague Rules, but the SC dismissed these defences as the cause of the damage was duly proven.