The Master Group International Inc (the plaintiff) was the owner of 71 packages of cargo. On delivery a package was found to be missing. The cargo was carried in a multimodal transport contract from Antwerp, Belgium, to be discharged at Charleston, United States, for final delivery at Cristobal, Panama. The multimodal transport was evidenced by a 'through bill of lading', which contained a paramount clause incorporating as applicable law the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of 1936 (US COGSA), which mirrors the Hague Rules.

Seacon, a carriage company, issued a bill of lading where Albatrans SRL appeared as the shipper and the plaintiff as the consignee. Later, Ecuadorian Lines issued another bill of lading for the same cargo, where Mercator Shipping and Flamingo Line de Panama appeared as the shipper and the consignee respectively. The plaintiff did not appear as a party to the contract in this bill of lading. The plaintiff filed its lawsuit against a vessel of Ecuadorian Lines, in its capacity as the last carrier. The lower court stated that, for this case, the rule of the last carrier did not apply as the entire carriage was not performed in one single container (the cargo was transhipped into another container) and the whole carriage was not governed by a single bill of lading. The Maritime Court therefore concluded that the plaintiff had no right to claim against the defendant and dismissed the claim. The plaintiff appealed the decision.

Held: The Supreme Court of Justice (SCJ), acting as Court of Maritime Appeals, reversed the decision. The SCJ analysed the rule of the 'last carrier' in multimodal transport under United States law and explained that, according to this rule, if the shipper proves that it delivered all of the cargo to the first carrier and that the last carrier delivered less cargo or cargo in a different condition, the last carrier shall be liable unless it can prove that the previous carrier was responsible for the loss. The SCJ stated that the lower court erred in applying this rule because, under the US COGSA and in US case law, there is no provision stating that if more than one container is used, the rule shall not apply. On the contrary, the SCJ noted that the essence of multimodal carriage is transport for long distances and by different modes of transport, and the fact that the cargo was transhipped to another container does not exclude the application of the last carrier rule.

Regarding the existence of more than one bill of lading, the SCJ stated that the carriage is governed by the first bill of lading. The other bills of lading issued later have the mere effect of internal arrangements between the intermediary parties of the multimodal carriage. In addition, the parties mentioned in those documents had no interest in the cargo, had not paid for it and were not even authorised to collect it. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to sue the defendant as it was the last carrier in the multimodal transport chain.

The SCJ also discussed whether the defendant had proven any of the exculpatory causes listed in the COGSA or whether another carrier had caused the damage. The SCJ concluded that the burden of proof was not satisfied and ordered the defendant to pay damages to the plaintiff.