Carriage (on 19 August 1991) of 100 mt of animal feed from Rotterdam to Alexandria (Egypt) on board MS Heliopolis Star under a bill of lading that identified Van Meer as shipper, and ‘Order of Bank of Commerce and Development ‘Al Tegaryoon’, Cairo Main Br. Egypt’ as ‘consignee’. Damco - who handled Van Meer's shipments of animal feed as a freight forwarder and who had a claim against Van Meer for earlier forwarding work - took receipt of the original bill of lading on behalf of Van Meer and instructed the agent of the carrier, Heliopolis, to deliver the cargo only in exchange for the original bill of lading. Van Meer informed Heliopolis on 5 September 1991 that the cargo could be delivered without presentation of the bill of lading, which was done. Damco effected an attachment on a sister ship (on 17 September 1991) stating that it is the lawful and regular bill of lading holder, and that it suffered loss due to the delivery of the cargo by Heliopolis without presentation of the bill of lading, and that Heliopolis thereby frustrated Damco's right of pledge over the cargo which it had by virtue of the Fenex Dutch Forwarding Conditions. In these interim measures proceedings Heliopolis demanded inter alia a declaration that the attachment (which was lifted in exchange for a bank guarantee) was unlawful. The court of first instance and the Court of Appeal disallowed the action. Damco filed an appeal in cassation.

Held (inter alia): A claim for damages by a lawful and regular bill of lading holder - which Damco claims to be - against Heliopolis as carrier under the bill of lading, whether the claim is sound or not, is to be regarded as a 'maritime claim' within the meaning of art 1.1.e of the Arrest Convention 1952 (‘arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods’).