In July 1980, a batch of coconut oil was unloaded from the Stolt Sea in the terminals of SAAR SpA (SAAR). The consignee, Procter & Gamble Italia SpA, noted the contamination of the cargo and sued Agenzia Marittima Hugo Trumpy SpA (AMHT), as the ship’s agent, in the Tribunal of Genoa. AMHT called on SAAR to indemnify it.

In July 1989, the Tribunal of Genoa considered the carrier and SAAR jointly liable for the contamination, ordering the former to pay ITL 51,550,761 and the latter to pay ITL 15,115,900. SAAR and AMHT appealed against this decision. In October 1994, the Court of Appeal decided that the shipowner, Monterey Shipping Corp (MSC), was the carrier in this case, as the bills of lading signed by the agent on behalf of the master of the ship did not include a valid indication of the carrier. AMHT appealed in cassation, producing a charterparty agreement between Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Co Ltd and Manilal & Sons (Private) Ltd as evidence that the shipowner was not the carrier.

Held: The appeal in cassation is dismissed.

The Court emphasised that the master of the ship represents the shipowner and, when issuing bills of lading, also the carrier under art 3.3 of the Hague-Visby Rules. Thereby, when the bill of lading is issued by the master or on their behalf without a valid indication of the carrier, the shipowner is to be considered the carrier, unless specific and different elements exist. The generic reference in the bill of lading to a charterparty agreement cannot be considered one of those elements.

The Court also recalled that only a valid indication of the carrier in the bill of lading entitles the signatory to avoid specifying on behalf of whom it issues the bill of lading. Without proper indication, the signatory acts on behalf of the carrier.

Moreover, the Court noted that there was no evidence of the existence of the charterparty agreement. The Court stressed that considerations on the evidence of the charterparty agreement concerned the merits of the dispute, and the Court could not discuss them in the context of cassation proceedings. In conclusion, the Court highlighted that the evidence presented by AMHT consisted of a copy alleged to conform to the original, without signatures and with a different date to that indicated for the charterparty agreement referred to in the bill of lading.