This was an appeal from a judgment of the Istanbul 17th Commercial Court of First Instance (2016/187-2018/400, 23 October 2018) and the Istanbul 14th Regional Court of Appeal (2019/634-2021/106, 28 January 2021).

The plaintiff carrier stated that it transported the defendant shipper's cargo in three containers under a transport contract, loading the cargo at Marport, Istanbul on 16 April 2014 and delivering it to Misurata, Libya, on 20 April 2014. It further contended that, as indicated in the bill of lading, the three containers used in the transport belonged to it. Notices of arrival were issued, yet over approximately 11 months, the cargo remained undelivered, the containers were not emptied and returned, and the defendant made no payment. As such, the three containers, still full, were being held at Misurata, preventing their use for further maritime transport and incurring demurrage charges. Additionally, under the terms of the bill of lading, the defendant, was responsible for the value of each container, all of which were 40-foot high cube containers. The plaintiff claimed a demurrage fee of USD 41,400 and USD 12,000 for the three containers, totalling USD 53,400, reserving the right to claim further damages.

The defendant failed to submit a response to the lawsuit despite being duly served.

The Commercial Court of First Instance found that according to the demurrage clause in the bill of lading, demurrage fees would accrue for the three containers up to 90 days based on the specified calculation method. Beyond the 90th day, if the containers were not returned, a replacement value of USD 4,000 per container would be payable. It was also stipulated that if the containers were not accepted by the consignee, the shipper would be responsible for the demurrage fees and container value. The Court ruled that demurrage for the containers commenced on 20 April 2015, partially accepted the claim, and ordered the defendant to pay USD 20,400 plus default interest from the date of the lawsuit.

The plaintiff appealed the decision.

The Regional Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, finding no procedural or legal errors in the lower Court's decision. The plaintiff appealed this ruling.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The Supreme Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal, upheld the decision of the Regional Court of Appeal, and sent the case file to the Commercial Court of First Instance for further action.