This was a claim brought by LLC Sibtorggrup (the claimant) against LLC Polyarnaya Zvezda (the defendant) for cargo loss.

On 30 April 2021, the claimant and the defendant concluded a freight forwarding agreement. The defendant undertook to organise carriage of goods by road, rail, and maritime transport, including providing the containers, delivering them to the place of loading, issuing the relevant transport documents, and other related services. Among other things, the defendant was obligated to ensure that the reefer containers used in the carriage were connected to electricity to maintain the temperature required for carriage of eggs, ie 0.1 ^oC.

Under an order dated 13 July 2021, the defendant undertook to carry the goods. The goods were delivered on 3 September 2021. At the port of discharge, the claimant found that the cargo was a loss. The claimant argued that the cause of the cargo loss was that the temperature regime was not maintained in the containers. The claimant sought compensation, but the defendant refused. The defendant argued that the claimant failed to specify the correct temperature in the order as it contradicted the Government standard for storing eggs which was the cause of the cargo loss. The Government standard is 0 ^oC.

The Court of first instance found in favour of the claimant in full. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. The Court of cassation reversed the judgment and sent the case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. The Court of Appeal again upheld the judgment of the Court of first instance. The defendant submitted another cassation appeal.

In this appeal, the defendant argued that the claimant submitted the claim outside the one-year prescription period; that the claimant did not load the containers carefully; that the claimant failed to notify the defendant of the inspection of the goods after their discharge in the port; that the contract contained a term that the temperature in the container can differ by no more than three degrees, and that the temperature in the containers during the carriage was maintained within three degrees of the agreed temperature.

Held: The cassation appeal is dismissed.

Under the Federal Law 'On Freight Forwarding Activity', the time bar for claims arising from breaches of freight forwarding contracts is one year. According to s 16 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia No 43 dated 29 September 2015, the time bar is suspended during pre-trial settlement initiated by one of the parties. The Court found that the claimant sent the pre-trial claim within the time bar period and, therefore, the time bar did not run after the submission of the pre-trial claim during the parties' pre-trial negotiations. Therefore, the claimant submitted the claim within the period prescribed.

The Court found that the breach of the temperature regime caused damage to the cargo. The Court concluded that the parties' agreement set a strict temperature for storing the goods. The provision allowing a three-degree difference was included in the agreement for emergency situations, such as brief power cuts for maintenance works. The government standard for storing the goods did not change the strict contractual terms agreed by the parties and, in any event, the government standard was also heavily breached.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the cassation appeal and upheld the Court of Appeal's judgment.