Decorespania SA, Magaesport and Don Bernardo (the plaintiffs) claimed for a missing container with 200 boxes of agricultural products loaded on board the MV Louise Bornhofen on 5 October 1980 to be carried from Barcelona, Spain, to Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The lawsuit was filed against Medafrica Lines SPA and Navigazione San Paolo SPA, the charterers of the ship.

Medafrica Lines SPA appeared in the process, opposed the claim and alleged, among other defences, that the plaintiffs' claim was time-barred. Navigazione San Paolo SPA also appeared in the process, rejected liability for the loss and filed a counterclaim for the expenses incurred in providing security to release the MV Rea Silvia, which had been arrested by the plaintiffs to obtain security for this claim. The first instance Court declared that the claim was time-barred and also dismissed the counterclaim. On appeal to the Court of Appeal (CA), the decision was affirmed. The plaintiff recurred the decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC). The plaintiff alleged that the container never arrived at its destination, but was discharged and lost in Lagos, Nigeria. Therefore, as there was no date of arrival, there was no starting date from which to count the time-bar period.

Held: The SC affirmed the CA's decision. The SC stated that the Code of Commerce (CCom), as well as the Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea under Bills of Lading of 22 December 1949 (LCGS) which incorporated the Hague Rules into the Spanish legal regime, coincided in two requirements for the efficacy of a claim arising from the carriage of goods by sea. First, the claimant must submit a protest at the moment of the delivery of the cargo or within 24 hours after delivery. That period is extended to three days under the LCGS if the damage is not apparent (see art 3.6 of the Hague Rules). Second, the claim must be filed within one year from the day of the delivery of the cargo or the day in which the cargo should have been delivered. The LCGS did not apply to this case as it is only applicable to carriage of goods between nations that have ratified the Hague Rules and there was no evidence that Nigeria had ratified the Rules. However, the claimants did not comply with the aforementioned requirements. There was no evidence of a protest, which should have been submitted immediately, given the lack of delivery of the container. The ship discharged on 27 October 1980 at the port of destination and the lawsuit was only filed on 8 June 1982. Between these two dates, there was no act to interrupt the time bar according to art 944 of the CCom. The arrest of the ship occurred on 14 May 1982, which was also outside the one-year time bar. It was irrelevant for this analysis that the container was discharged and lost in the previous port. What was essential was to determine the applicability of the one-year time bar established in art 952.2 of the CCom. This provision must be read in connection with other related provisions that refer to delays, damages, losses and non-delivery of the cargo to prevent an interpretation that supposes an irrational conclusion that when there is no delivery, for whatever reason, there is no time limit unless the date of delivery has been expressly agreed.