The MSC Tamara and the MSC Pilar were loaded with a shipment of fresh kiwifruit to be carried from Chile to Italy. The contract of carriage was concluded by the shipper with Overseas Transport Co Ltd (Overseas), which issued a house bill of lading. Overseas then sub-contracted performance of the carriage to Mediterranean Shipping Co SA (MSC), which issued a master bill of lading. During the carriage, damage occurred to the cargo.

Axa Corporate Solutions Assurances SA (Axa), having subrogated itself to the rights of the cargo claimants, sued the ships' agent, Agenzia Marittima Aldo Spadoni Srl (Spadoni), in its capacity as the carrier's representative, for compensation for the cargo damage suffered.

In its defence, Spadoni argued that Axa's claim for compensation was time-barred, but the Court of Livorno, by judgment No 414/2017, held that the limitation period under art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules did not apply, and therefore upheld Axa's claim in tort.

Spadoni appealed to the Court of Appeal of Florence, arguing that the Court of first instance had erred in not applying the limitation period.

Held: The limitation period in the Hague-Visby Rules applies. Axa's claim had therefore lapsed, and the judgment of the Court of first instance must be reversed.

In particular, the Court of Appeal held that the claim against the sub-carrier, MSC, was contractual in nature, and in any case fell within the scope of the Hague-Visby Rules.

Pursuant to art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules:

[T]he carrier and the ship shall in any event be discharged from all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods, unless suit is brought within one year of their delivery or of the date when they should have been delivered. This period may, however, be extended if the parties so agree after the cause of action has arisen.

The Visby Protocol of 23 February 1968 integrated art 4 bis into the Hague Rules, which in its first paragraph provides:

The defences and limits of liability provided for in these Rules shall apply in any action against the carrier in respect of loss or damage to goods covered by a contract of carriage whether the action be founded in contract or in tort.

According to the Court of Appeal, the intention with this last provision was clearly to ensure a uniform and certain discipline for the entire dynamics of the transport relationship under the bill of lading, avoiding the possibility that the protections set up by the Rules in favour of the carrier could be circumvented.

With particular reference to this case, the rationale of the amendment is aimed precisely at avoiding the possibility that, if an action for contractual liability against the carrier is not promptly pursued in accordance with the Convention, the plaintiff can then subsequently take action based on a non-contractual claim, released from this stringent limitation term.

Considering that Axa and Spadoni concluded an agreement to extend by three months the annual limitation period for filing the action for damages, the Court of Appeal found that the time-bar applied, even though Axa framed its cause of action in tort.