Euskalfish SA (the plaintiff) claimed for damage to a cargo of shrimps carried from Moin, Costa Rica, to Barcelona, Spain. The claim was filed against Costa Container Lines Spa (Costa), the carrier, and Contship España SL (Contship), the carrier's agent at the port of Barcelona. The damage occurred because the reefer container did not provide the right temperature.

The defendants appeared in the process alleging the lack of legal standing of the plaintiff to bring suit against them. Contship also alleged that the claim was time-barred (caducada) and Costa argued it was entitled to limit its liability. The first instance Court admitted the claim and ordered the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay compensation in full. The defendants appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal reversed the claim partially reducing the amount of the compensation, as part of the claim was pending of decision in another court (litis pendens). The agent’s liability was affirmed according to art 586 of the Code of Commerce (CCom) and art 3 of the Law on Carriage of Goods by Sea of 22 December 1949 (LCGS 1949) that assign to the agent the same liabilities of the carrier. The LCGS 1949 introduced the Hague Rules into the Spanish legal system with some modifications. Article 3 of the LCGS 1949 provides a more extensive concept of the carrier stating that ‘in respect of the previous article “carrier” shall mean the owner of the vessel who equips, hires the crew, victuals and exploits it at its own risk, and also the person in charge of representing the vessel in the port in which it is located'. Hence, the agent was liable as the carrier. On 16 November 1991, the Protocols of 1968 and 1979 were ratified by Spain, introducing the Hague-Visby Rules and the SDR Protocol, which does not contain a similar provision. All parties recurred this decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC).

Held: The SC reversed the decision. The SC stated that Contship, in its capacity of an agent of the carrier, bore no responsibility towards the cargo interests for the damage because it is placed outside the scope of art 586 of the CCom and art 3 of the LCGS 1949. The agent is an independent contractor, who on behalf of the carrier provides services to the ship when it is at the port. It shall be only liable for a deficient execution of the carriage when it has contracted in its own name. Therefore, Contship was released from liability and the time-bar defence it alleged was not analyzed. The SC ordered Costa to pay full compensation.