The plaintiff claimed for damage to a cargo of 800 packages of frozen fish carried from Puerto Limon, Costa Rica, to the port of Bridgetown, Barbados, under a combined transport modality. The damage occurred because of an accident to the container in Costa Rica on 30 April 2009, before it was loaded onboard the vessel. The lawsuit was filed on 6 December 2009.

The carrier alleged the application of the law of Costa Rica as the damage occurred during the land leg of the carriage, instead of the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules, which applied for the port to port portion according to cl 5.1 of the bill of lading. The bill of lading also provided in cl 5.2 how the carrier’s liabilities must be assessed for combined transport. Clause 5.2.2(a) of the bill of lading indicated that the national law or an international convention should apply if that regulation 'would have been compulsory applicable in the case where a separate contract had been made in respect to the particular stage of transport concerned'. Based on that, the defendant argued that the claim was time-barred, as the national law of Costa Rica establishes a six-month time bar.

The lower court decided that, as there was no additional or separate contract with any subcontractor for the land leg, the applicable law should be ascertained according to cl 5.2.2(c). This clause provided that, if there was no contract with the subcontractor, the carrier’s liability had to be determined as if the damage had occurred during the port to port section. Hence, the applicable law was the Hague/Hague-Visby rules, which in art 3.6 established a one-year time limitation. Therefore, the Maritime Court rejected the time-bar defence as the claim was filed within the correct period. The carrier appealed the decision.

Held: The Civil Branch of the Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), acting as Court of Maritime Appeals, upheld the decision. The SCJ agreed with the reasoning of the lower court, adding that, according to art 10 of the Hague Rules, these Rules apply to all bills of lading issued in any of the contracting States. The defendant was a company based in Switzerland, which has ratified such Rules. In addition, the parties had contractually agreed upon the application of these rules for the port to port section, which made them applicable for the damage under discussion. Therefore, as the complaint was filed and process was served with the arrest of the defendant’s ship within the one-year period stated in art 3.6 of the Hague/Hague-Visby rules, the claim was not time-barred.