The plaintiff's Turkish-registered ship damaged a pier during its approach to load oil at a Tüpraş refinery on 20 March 2013. A guarantee of USD 2.35 million was demanded for the damages incurred. The plaintiff provided the guarantee in order to prevent the ship from being detained or arrested. The plaintiff contended that art 1345 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC) provided that once a limitation fund is established, all of the guarantees in kind and personal guarantees provided previously regarding the relevant incident shall be null and void, and the liability arising out of the relevant maritime claims can be limited under the LLMC 1996. The plaintiff applied to establish a fund limited to 1 million SDRs for the liabilities of all persons concerned, including the ship, shipowner, and charterer, by depositing this amount into an account, calculated as the equivalent in TRY on the date when the fund was established, and keeping the amount in an interest-bearing account as provided for in art 1347.2 of the TCC. The plaintiff's view was that when this amount was deposited under the fund, the guarantee provided to Tüpraş was null and void.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff's ship caused damage of TRY 4,236,425 to the plaintiff's pier, and contended that the damage could not be limited to 1 million SDRs, as art 4 of the LLMC 1996 regulated acts barring a right to limitation where there was fault. The plaintiff's application to establish a limitation fund should therefore be dismissed.

The Court of first instance observed that limitation of liability was regulated by art 1328 of the TCC, which gave domestic effect in Türkiye to the LLMC 1976, as amended by the 1996 Protocol. The plaintiff had the right to limit under the Convention since the plaintiff was the shipowner, and the damage caused by the plaintiff's ship to the defendant's pier fell within the scope of art 2.1.a of the Convention, and was one of the claims subject to limitation. The party who asserts a reason that bars the right to limitation is required to prove this. The current expert report stated that there was no act falling within the scope of art 4 of the Convention that abolishes the limitation right. The plaintiff had deposited USD 1,533,000 - the equivalent of 1 million SDRs - into an account at the Turkish Vakıflar Bank on 11 October 2003. Therefore, the plaintiff's application for the establishment of a limitation fund should be approved. Since it has been regulated under art 1345 of the TCC that all of guarantees in kind and personal guarantees regarding claims end automatically when the limitation fund is established, there is no need to render a decision in this regard.

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: The appeal is dismissed, and the judgment of the lower Court is upheld.

Since there is no procedural or unlawful aspect in the Court of first instance's discussion and evaluation of the evidence, on which the justification of the Court's decision was based, and since the material defect regarding the attorney's fee stated in cl 5 of the judgment is a defect that can be remedied, none of the defendant's appeal grounds are applicable.