This was an appeal brought by the appellant carrier, Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (MSC), against a decision of the Commercial Court No 3 of Pontevedra (Vigo), which upheld the claim filed by the respondent insurance company, Reale Seguros Generales SA (RSG), for EUR 28,121.45.

Pladurex Carpetería SL (Pladurex) bought a consignment of 1,176 boxes with levers and compressers for AZ filing cabinets from Tocheunglee Stationery Mfg Co (Pvt), located in Tamil Nadu, India. For the transportation of the goods from India to Spain, Pladurex contracted with the freight forwarding company Operinter, which in turn subcontracted the transport to MSC.

When unloading the cargo, it was found that water had entered into the interior of the container due to a lack of airtightness or impermeability due to damage to its structure. Operinter reimbursed Pladurex for the cargo damage, and RSG, as Operinter's insurer, paid out its insured and then sued MSC.

MSC argued, among other things, that RSG's claim was time-barred under art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

The action for recourse brought by RSG cannot be considered expired because the claim was filed before the extended term had elapsed. The cargo, unloaded in the port of Vigo on 6 May 2020, was deconsolidated at the recipient's facilities on 11 May 2020, at which time the limitation period began to run. In principle, that period ended on 11 May 2021, although, by mutual agreement, it was extended for three months, until 11 August 2021. On 30 July 2021, RSG filed its claim in the Commercial Court in Valencia.

MSC maintains that this claim did not interrupt expiration, having been brought before a manifestly incompetent body, which forced RSG to file an ex novo claim before the courts of Vigo on 21 December 2021, several months after the expiration period had already elapsed.

Article 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules refers to a 'suit' being 'brought', so it is a question of elucidating whether that first claim, filed before the courts of Valencia, implied the exercise of the action; or, on the contrary, because the procedure was archived due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, the action cannot be understood as filed except for the second claim.

In this case, RSG filed its claim before the courts of Valencia, where the Spanish agent or subsidiary of MSC had its headquarters, to which the claim was addressed, and with which the conversations for its processing were held from the beginning. MSC argued in favour of a Swiss venue under art 2.1 of the Lugano Convention, or an English venue, having signed and accepted a submission clause to the London courts. This argument was dismissed by an order of 16 November 2021, which affirmed the competence of the Spanish jurisdiction to hear the matter, although the appropriate territorial jurisdiction did not correspond to Valencia, but rather to Vigo. The Court thus did not consider that it lacked jurisdiction because the matter should be heard by the courts of another State. On the contrary, it found that the Spanish courts were competent, but that another Spanish court had territorial jurisdiction.

Therefore, this ground of appeal cannot be accepted.