Antonio Sánchez Romero SA (the plaintiff) claimed against the carrier, Zim Israel Navigation Co Ltd, later Zim Buenos Aires, for damage to two shipments of meat carried on board the MV ZIM Uruguay and the Zim Buenos Aires, to be delivered at the port of Las Palmas, Spain. The damage occurred due to defects in refrigeration.

The defendant appeared in the process alleging lack of jurisdiction of the Court and denied any responsibility for the damage. The first instance Court dismissed the claim. In the appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. The plaintiff recurred this decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC), alleging infraction of arts 3.6 and 10.c of the Hague-Visby Rules.

Held: The SC revoked the decision. The SC stated that the Code of Commerce of Spain (CCom) established an obligation for the claimant to submit a protest within 24 hours after the delivery of the cargo when damage is not apparent, as a condition for claiming compensation for damages. However, the Law on Carriage of Goods by Sea of 22 December 1949 (LCGS 1949) introduced the Hague Rules into the Spanish law, with some modifications. Spain also ratified the Visby and SDR Protocols of 1968 and 1979. The Hague-Visby Rules do not contain the requirement stated in the CCom. The LCGS and its later amendments made this international instrument of full application in Spain as ordered by the Constitution and the Civil Code. That means its application prevails because, as stated in the case law, the international obligations of a duly agreed instrument have prevalence in case of conflict or contradiction with the sources of the local law that differ from them. Therefore, the Hague-Visby Rules applied as they were referred to in the bills of lading and according to art 10.c of the Rules.

Regarding the infraction of art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, the SC stated that the system of liabilities for damage established in the Rules does not entail anything else than a rebuttable presumption in favour of the carrier that the cargo has been delivered in the state described in the bill of lading. However, such a presumption can be rebutted by evidence of the damage, unless, before or at the moment of receiving the cargo, a written notice of the losses or damage and the general nature of such loss or damage is given to the carrier or its agent at the port of destination, regarding apparent damage. This presumption is also rebutted if the state of the goods has been determined at the moment of its reception. The shipments were delivered on 24 February 1992 and 10 March 1992. As the lawsuit was filed on 26 December 1992, it was filed within the one-year time bar established in the Hague-Visby Rules. Therefore, the SC revoked the decision and ordered the defendant to pay compensation.