A Danish shipping company, Blue Water Shipping A/S (B), transported two containers of pickled vegetables for M Pars, the sole proprietorship of Omid Aladadi (A), from Iran to Denmark in June 2020. The transport was based on an agreement entered into between A and B in May 2020.

When the goods arrived in Ringsted, Denmark, in June 2020, they were found to be damaged and had to be discarded. On 2 August 2021, A initiated proceedings against B for DKK 236,650.56. A argued that B was obligated to care for the goods pursuant to s 262 of the Merchant Shipping Act (the MSA) [art 3.1 of the Hague-Visby Rules]. According to A, it was therefore B’s responsibility to make sure that the goods were not damaged during transport.

B argued that A's compensation claim was time-barred under s 501(1)(6) of the MSA [art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules]. A countered that B had acknowledged its claim, and therefore the limitation period had been interrupted. In particular, A claimed that B had acknowledged being responsible for A's claim by reserving its position in respect of a recourse claim against A's subcontractor in Iran in June 2020, sending A a claims form, and notifying its insurance company about a possible claim in August 2020.

B further argued that the packaging of the pickled vegetables on pallets was already inadequate when B received it from A's subcontractor in Iran. According to B, this inadequate packaging of the goods on the pallets caused the damage to the goods before they were even loaded into B's container. Finally, B claimed that A had not documented its loss, in particular, the 'market price' for the damaged part of the goods. The value of goods of the same kind at the place and time when the goods were delivered, or should have been delivered, must be documented: see s 279(1) of the MSA [art 4.5.b of the Hague-Visby Rules].

Held: Judgment for B.

A's claim is governed by 275 of the MSA [cp art 4.2.q of the Hague-Visby Rules], which provides:

The carrier shall be liable for losses resulting from loss of or damage to the goods while the goods are in its charge, unless the carrier proves that fault or neglect by it or any person for whom it is responsible have not caused or contributed to the loss.

A's claim is therefore subject to the one-year statute of limitations in s 501(1)(6) of the MSA.

Further, it is normal procedure for a shipping company to reserve its position regarding a recourse claim, to ask a customer to fill in a claims form, and to notify its insurance company about a possible claim. Therefore, the limitation period was not legally interrupted in line with s 15 of the Limitation Act, read with s 501(3) of the MSA, which provides that the period is interrupted, among other things, by taking legal action before the expiry of the period. It is not disputed that A's claim was brought more than a year after the delivery of the goods in June 2020. The claim is thus time-barred.