This was an appeal from the judgment of the Istanbul 52nd Commercial Court of First Instance (14 March 2013, 2012/330-2013/55).

The plaintiff insurer paid its insured under its insurance policy and sought to collect TRY 4,730 plus interest from the defendant, arguing that the defendant was liable as the carrier for the damage of the goods. In particular, the plaintiff argued that the goods were delivered to the insured on 10 August 2010 at the Port of Yeniköy, and during discharge operations the goods were found to be damaged.

The plaintiff further referred to art 1178 of the Turkish Commercial Code (the TCC) [which is based on art 3.2 of the Hague Rules, art 3.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules, and art 4.2 of the Hamburg Rules - although Türkiye is only a State Party to the Hague Rules, the TCC incorporates provisions which purport to adopt elements of the Hague-Visby and Hamburg Rules], which sets out the liability of carrier and period of the responsibility of the carrier. Accordingly:

In the implementation of the transport contract, the carrier is obliged to pay strict attention as expected from a prudent carrier for the loading, stowing, handling, transportation, protection, observance, and unloading of the cargo;

The carrier is responsible for the losses arising from the loss of or damage to the goods or late delivery of them [in line with the Hamburg Rules]. However, in order to hold the carrier liable, the loss, damage or delay in delivery should occur during the goods are in possession of the carrier.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff insurer lacked standing to sue and that no liability could be directed against the defendant, since the defendant acted as the carrier's agent for the relevant transportation. The defendant therefore applied for the dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Court of first instance observed that the transportation was subject to the bill of lading dated 1 August 2010, and the defendant was named as the general agent of the carrier in the bill of lading. The Court further found that a lawsuit can be brought against the agent as the representative/on behalf of the principal, only with regard to the operations which such agent mediated. However, the Court found that the relevant contract of carriage dated 29 March 2004 and its amendment contract dated 1 November 2009 were signed by the carrier; that the defendant did not mediate this agreement; and that the defendant was not identified as the carrier in the bill of lading. Hence, the Court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit due to a lack of standing.

The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal dismissed. The judgment of the Court of first instance is upheld in favour of the defendant.