The carrier, Mediterranean Shipping Co (MSC), carried 6,300 balls of asbestos fibre stowed in 18 containers on the Atlantic Victory from Port Elizabeth, South Africa, on the Atlantic Victory to Livorno, Italy. On discharge in Marina di Carrara, Italy, two containers were found to be missing. MSC declared that they fell into the sea during navigation. The bill of lading included an English jurisdiction clause.

Other bags of asbestos fibre, stowed in 24 containers, were carried on the Sandra S from Durban, South Africa, to Livorno, Italy. Only 22 containers were discharged. In this case too, MSC declared that the missing containers fell into the sea. Moreover, 350 bags in another container were found to be wet. The bill of lading included an arbitration clause in favour of Hamburg, Germany.

In February 1984, the Insurance Co of North America and other insurance companies, as the insurers of the goods, sued Agenzia Marittima Aldo Spadoni (AMAS) as the carrier's agent in the Tribunal of Livorno. In May 1986, the Tribunal of Livorno ordered AMAS to pay compensation. AMAS appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal of Florence. In particular, AMAS argued that the Italian judge lacked jurisdiction in the case. Moreover, as to the carriage on the Atlantic Victory, AMAS relied on the excepted peril of nautical fault under art 4.2.a of the Hague-Visby Rules. As to the carriage on the Sandra S, AMAS argued exemption from liability because of a violent storm, amounting to an instance of force majeure. In November 1989, the Court of Appeal of Florence dismissed AMAS's appeal on the lack of jurisdiction as well as on the merits.

AMAS appealed in cassation, insisting that the Italian courts lacked jurisdiction.

Held: AMAS's appeal is dismissed.

The Court found that the Italian courts had jurisdiction over the case.

Furthermore, the Court recalled that with regard to the carriage on the Atlantic Victory, the Court of Appeal of Florence identified the cause of the loss of the two containers as unsuitable cargo lashing. The Court also noted that AMAS did not provide a defence on this issue. The Court also recognised the fault of the master in choosing the relevant navigation route because of adverse meteorological conditions. However, the Court emphasised that this fault was not crucial in causing the cargo loss. The Court pointed out that under the Italian Code of Navigation and the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier is exempt from liability if it shows that the loss or damage of cargo arose from the indicated excepted perils or from an atypical excepted peril under art 4.2.q of the Hague-Visby Rules. The carrier must also show the causal link between the event and the damage. The Court found that absence of fault on the part of the carrier was not proved.

In conclusion, as to the carriage of the Sandra S, the Court observed that in order to exclude the carrier's liability, there must not be any other concurrent cause with the same or a more preponderant effect compared to the excepted peril. The Court pointed out that this requirement was not met, and that the carrier also did not provide evidence of fulfilling its due diligence obligations.