This was an appeal from a judgment of the Istanbul 14th Regional Court of Appeal (23 January 2020, 2018/927-2020/84) and a judgment of the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance (12 February 2018, 2016/474-2018/28).

The plaintiff carrier asserted that it was responsible for transporting the defendant's cargo of acetic acid in drums consolidated in a container by sea. During the transhipment at an intermediate port, leakage from the container was observed, and a survey was conducted. The container's drums were replaced. The repaired container was then sent back to Casablanca. The plaintiff covered the expenses related to the damage, but the defendant did not reimburse these costs. Invoices were issued to the defendant for the expenses incurred due to the leakage, which were initially returned by the defendant and then reissued. The plaintiff claimed that the survey and transhipment costs were the responsibility of the defendant as shipper, and initiated a debt collection process through the Istanbul 19th Execution Office under file number 2016/26354. The plaintiff sought to overturn the defendant’s objection to this debt collection, to continue the collection process, and to obtain a ruling for compensation for the denial of debt.

The defendant, with allegedly extensive experience of trading flammable and corrosive hazardous materials, argued that the transportation of such goods is governed by International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations, to which the carrier failed to adhere. It highlighted that hazardous materials could leak if stored for prolonged periods. Additionally, significant uncertainties were noted in this instance, including the ship's location, storage conditions, and how long the acetic acid remained in the drums. The notification of restacking and reloading was delayed at the transhipment port, resulting in part of the goods being lost and delivered late and incomplete to the buyer. As a result, the defendant contended that timely notification could have minimised the costs and losses incurred, thereby requesting the dismissal of the lawsuit.

The Commercial Court of First Instance determined that the defendant, as the shipper, was responsible for loading, stacking, securing, counting, and sealing the 700 barrels of acetic acid inside the container. Due to the improper stacking of five layers in the container, the bottom layer collapsed under the weight of the upper layers, causing leakage. This was confirmed by both expert and forensic reports. Therefore, the defendant was found liable for the resulting transhipment and port costs, as well as the survey expenses. The invoices presented by the plaintiff for the container-related expenses totalled USD 38,317.18, for which the defendant was held responsible. The Court found no fault on the part of the plaintiff.

The decision was appealed to the Regional Court of Appeal by the defendant.

The Regional Court of Appeal held that the leakage occurred within the transport duration stipulated in the bill of lading, and the packaging, which was done by the defendant, was not suitable for the goods, thus making the defendant liable for the resulting damages. It was also noted that pursuant to art 1148 of the Turkish Commercial Code (No 6102, TCC) [based on art 4.6 of the Hague Rules and the Hague-Visby Rules], the plaintiff has the right to take necessary measures to address the risks associated with the transportation of goods of an inflammable, explosive or dangerous nature, and there is no obligation to notify the defendant. Consequently, the Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal.

The defendant further appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Justice.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

After reviewing the case and the applicable legal standards, the Supreme Court found no errors in the Court of First Instance’s decision and affirmed that the defendant was liable for costs due to improper stacking of the products. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal was upheld.