This was an extraordinary appeal brought by the appellant Kuehne & Nagel SA against the respondent ANL Container Line Pty Ltd in respect of Judgment No 474/2019 issued by the Provincial Court of Madrid (Section 28).

The appellant argued that the judgment appealed against did not correctly apply the rules relating to burden of proof, and that the respondent did not substantiate its claimed costs. The appellant further contended that: the respondent lacked active legitimacy to sue the appellant, due to the lack of any contractual link between the two parties; art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules had been violated - the appellant was a freight forwarder/carrier, so the expiration period of one year had to be applied to any action brought against the appellant by the respondent; and there was no causal relationship between the conduct of the appellant and the detention of the containers that would justify non-contractual liability.

Held: The extraordinary appeal is inadmissible.

The appellant states that the respondent did not provide any evidence to justify the amount claimed. It states the non-existence of invoices and rates which served as the basis for proceeding with this quantification. However, the Provincial Court, after an examination of all the evidence, especially the documentary and testimonial evidence, found both the existence of the damages and their quantification. Thus, the Court specified that the respondent presented the cost settlements for delay of each of the containers, providing the bill of lading, the name of the vessel, each one of the containers, the dates of unloading and detention, the declaration of abandonment, and the amount that was applied according to the tariffs.

The appellant states that it entered into a contract with MacAndrews, but not with the respondent, and that it did so as the representative of Oxim Deutschland GmbH. However, the Provincial Court, after an overall examination of the evidence, concluded the existence of a contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondent, in which the latter performed its function as maritime carrier, and the former positioned itself as shipper.