This was an appeal from a judgment of the 51st Commercial Court of First Instance (2008/187-2011/406).

The plaintiff carrier claimed that the container that it provided to the defendant shipper, holding a shipment of marble blocks transported by sea from Türkiye to Valencia, Spain, was damaged. It alleged that the damage arose from the defendant's improper and faulty loading of the container, and the defendant failed to cover the cost of the container damage. Enforcement proceedings were initiated but were halted due to the defendant's objection. The plaintiff sought annulment of the objection, continuation of the proceedings, and at least 40% enforcement denial compensation.

The defendant argued that, although a transport contract existed between the parties, it was not established that the damage in question occurred during transport or was caused by the goods stuffed into the container. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the damage was not reported at the time it allegedly occurred and that it was unclear whether the damage fell within its fault and responsibility. The defendant further argued that the compensation and damage amounts demanded were excessively high and requested the dismissal of the case.

The Commercial Court of First Instance, based on the expert report and all evidence, including photographs, found that the container in question was stuffed by the defendant within its tonnage capacity. However, the damage to the container resulted from improper stuffing, including the failure to properly distribute the cargo's weight, failure to adjust the cargo's centre of gravity, and movement of the cargo during transport. The Court concluded that the damage was caused by the improper stuffing of heavy cargo inside the container.

As a result, the Court accepted the claim and, since the debt was deemed liquidated, awarded enforcement denial compensation at a rate of 40% of the claimed amount. The defendant appealed the decision.

Held: Appeal upheld.

The case concerns the annulment of an objection to enforcement proceedings initiated to recover damages to the plaintiff’s containers during transport. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the lower Court relied on a second expert report, which attributed the damage to improper securing of the cargo. However, the earlier expert report dated 22 January 2010 and its supplement found no evidence or indication that the damage to the containers was caused by improper securing of the cargo or overloading beyond the container’s capacity. Thus, it concluded that the defendant was not responsible for the damage.

The Supreme Court noted a conflict between the two reports, which the lower Court had failed to address. It held that the inconsistency should have been resolved before reaching a judgment, rendering the decision improper. As such, the defendant's appeal was upheld, and the judgment was reversed in favour of the defendant.