On 28 May 2009 SOFRECA shipped motor vehicles from the port of Antwerp, Belgium, on the M/V Cote d'Ivorian Star, which arrived in Douala, Cameroon, on 8 June 2009. SOFRECA argued that during the various transport, handling and stevedoring operations the relevant vehicle suffered several instances of damage. In order to honour its commitments to its client, SOFRECA alleged that it was forced to carry out preliminary repairs costing XOF 2,903,351 and also suffered financial loss of XOF 987,139 for delay in the delivery of the vehicle and for various procedural costs. SOFRECA therefore sought damages of XOF 3,890,490 and discovery of relevant documents.

SOCOMAR SA argued that it did not appear from the documents produced by the plaintiff in support of its claim that the damage occurred when the vehicle was under SOCOMAR's responsibility. The ocean carrier delivered the vehicle on time. The vehicle was only removed by SOFRECA 38 days after its arrival. The long stay of the vehicle in the park due to SOFRECA's delay may have contributed to the damage. EOLIS argued that there were contradictory expert reports on the loading and discharge of the vehicle and that SOFRECA had not produced documentary evidence attesting that the damage occurred while the vehicle was in the custody of the ocean carrier, and also did not give notice of damage at the time of taking delivery on 18 July 2009. 

Held: Claim dismissed.

SOFRECA did not express any reservations in the delivery note issued to it by the ocean carrier, nor in the goods release issued by SOCOMAR at the time of the removal of its vehicle. This deficiency, in accordance with art 19.1 of the Hamburg Rules, makes it presumable, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that the goods were delivered by the carrier as described in the transport document or, if no transport document has been issued, that they were delivered in good condition. Moreover, no expert evidence has been provided to determine the place and the cause of the damage. In the absence of reservations and evidence of the place of occurrence of the damages in dispute, it is necessary to dismiss the plaintiff's action.