Assicurazioni Generali Spa, later La Estrella SA de Seguros y Reaseguros (the plaintiff), was the insurer of cargo loaded onto the MV Nayadic in Vigo, Spain, to be delivered to a port in Argentina. The ship collided with a dock in Chile due to bad weather. The vessel and the cargo were salved under a LOF 90 contract. The salvors required a warranty as a condition to deliver the cargo, which the plaintiff provided on behalf of the insured. The salvage claim was submitted to arbitration in London. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nayadic Shipping Co NV, the owner of the salved vessel, Seatrade Group NV, the P&I Club and Joaquín Dávila y Cía SA, the ship’s agent, claiming the amounts that it would have to pay on behalf of the cargo interests to the salvors to be apportioned by the arbitral award. The plaintiff also claimed the costs of maintaining the security and the expenses incurred in hiring a law firm to undertake its representation in the arbitral proceedings. The plaintiff alleged the responsibility of the carrier based on the Hague-Visby Rules, stating that the collision of the vessel was the consequence of negligent actions.

The plaintiff dismissed the claim against Joaquín Dávila y Cía SA and continued the claims against the other defendants. The defendants argued that the court had no jurisdiction to decide the merits of the case as: (1) the bills of lading contained a Rotterdam jurisdiction clause; (2) the action had elapsed (caducada) according to art 3.6 of the Hague Rules; (3) there was a valid exclusion of liability according to art 6 of the Hague Rules; (4) the plaintiff was under an obligation to contribute to the salvage award according to the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law respecting Assistance and Salvage at Sea 1910 (the Salvage Convention 1910). The defendants also alleged that a fund for limitation of liability had been constituted according to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (LLMC 1976) but that that did not represent any acceptance of their liability. The first instance Court dismissed the case on grounds of lack of jurisdiction to decide the merits of the claim. The plaintiff appealed the decision and the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. The plaintiffs recurred this decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC).

Held: The SC Affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision. The SC analysed the jurisdiction clause contained in the bills of lading and stated that it was valid under the Hague-Visby Rules.