HBC Hamburg Bulk Carriers GmbH & Co KG (HBC) and Western Bulk Pte Ltd, a Singapore company owned by Western Bulk Carriers AS (WBC), entered into a voyage charterparty on 30 March 2009. The charterparty provided that HBC could lease the ship MV United Stars from WBC to transport aluminium hydroxide from Brazil to the plant of Norsk Hydro AS (NH) in Norway. HBC had undertaken the transport assignment in a contract of affreightment entered into with NH for 2008-2010.

On a crossing from Brazil, the vessel was delayed because it was arrested in Falmouth, UK, on 2 May 2009. The cargo was delayed and only arrived in Norway on 29 May 2009. The arrest and delay led to NH setting off its costs incurred as a result of the delay against freight owing to HBC. The set-off took place on 8 June 2009 for a total amount of USD 316,000. HBC claims to have suffered a loss of USD 316,000 as a result of conditions for which WBC is responsible. The recourse claim against WBC was brought in the Oslo District Court on 28 August 2012. HBC obtained partial settlement of its recourse claim against WBC, so the claim advanced now amounts to approximately USD 200,000.

WBC claimed that the recourse claim had been raised against the wrong legal entity, as it was Western Bulk Pte Ltd which was the party to the voyage charterparty, and not WBC. This claim did not succeed. WBC alternatively argued that the claim was time-barred under the one-year limitation period in s 501 para 1 no 7 and s 501 para 2 in the Maritime Code. Pursuant to s 501 para 2 of the Maritime Code, a recourse claim in connection with a claim for compensation relating to goods does not become time-barred until at least one year after it was paid, provided that the claim was paid before it became statute-barred. The claim from NH against HBC was paid by set-off on 8 June 2009. This part of the claim was therefore time-barred on 8 June 2010. HBC's claim against WBC was therefore also time-barred.

HBC claimed that the ordinary limitation rules applied, as none of the Maritime Code's special rules applied to compensation claims due to delay.

The District Court concluded that HBC's recourse claim was time-barred. HBC appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Payment of the claim for compensation took place by set-off on 8 June 2009. Limitation was first interrupted by a settlement appeal on 24 October 2011. The question of whether the claim is time-barred therefore depends on whether the general limitation period of three years under s 502 of the Maritime Code, or the special one-year limitation period referred to in s 501 para 1 no 7 of the Maritime Code applies. The one-year rule in s 501 para 2 of the Maritime Code applies 'to recourse claims in connection with a claim mentioned in the first paragraph no. 7', and stipulates that limitation occurs one year from the day the claim was paid. The provision referred to includes 'claims for compensation for loss of or damage to or relating to goods'.

The wording of these provisions cannot be understood in any other way than that losses as a result of delayed goods - and thus a recourse claim in connection with such a loss - are time-barred one year after the recourse claim was paid. Admittedly, delay is not explicitly mentioned in s 501 para 1 no 7 of the Maritime Code, but delay falls linguistically within the wording 'relating to goods'.

This interpretation has clear support in the preparatory work for the law. Ot prp nr 28 (1972-1973) p 33 explicitly states that the wording 'relating to goods' was chosen by the legislature to cover loss of delay in accordance with the Hague-Visby Rules which were to be incorporated into Norwegian law. Considerations of harmony and consistency in the legislation also suggest that a one-year rule must apply. According to s 501 para 1 no 6 of the Maritime Code, passenger liability claims are time-barred after two years. It would be illogical if there were a longer limitation period for the carriage of goods in professional relationships between traders. The basis for liability for delay is the same as for cargo damage: see s 278 of the Maritime Code. It would not be logical to treat claims that have the same basis for liability in the Code differently with regard to the time limit for limitation. In Swedish, Finnish and Danish maritime legislation, a one-year limitation period applies. The consideration of legal unity between the four Nordic countries therefore argues that a one-year rule must also apply in Norwegian law.

The legal sources leave no doubt that HCB's recourse claim for the loss caused by delay is time-barred according to one-year statute of limitations calculated from the payment of the claim on 8 June 2009. This clearly follows from the wording of the law, preparatory work, practical considerations, and legal theory.