This was an appeal from a judgment of the Regional Court of Appeal (2023/241-2024/2039) and the Commercial Court of First Instance (2019/813-2022/1066).

The plaintiff alleged that animal feed purchased for shipment was loaded in good condition onto the defendant's vessel in Russia, with a clean bill of lading issued. Upon discharge at Samsun Port, the cargo was found to be damaged and unusable, with the damage reportedly occurring during transportation. The plaintiff claimed a financial loss of USD 210,391.40 due to the sale of the damaged cargo at a reduced value. The plaintiff further stated that the defendant objected to enforcement proceedings initiated to recover the damages and sought annulment of the objection, along with compensation for unjustified denial.

The defendant argued that the bill of lading for the shipment in question was issued to order, and that the plaintiff, as the cargo receiver, must produce the original bills of lading to prove its entitlement to the cargo. The defendant raised objections regarding the plaintiff's legal standing, noting that all disputes should be resolved under the London CEDR (Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution) mediation procedures. The defendant asserted that a ship engineer's inspection confirmed the vessel's suitability for grain carriage, with certification to that effect, and reported no holes in the hatch covers or coamings, nor any external water ingress into the cargo hold.

The defendant further stated that the moisture naturally present within the cargo condensed into water droplets on the inner surfaces of the hold and hatch covers where the cargo was not in contact. It argued that the entire cargo could not be deemed damaged, and that the claim was time-barred. As such, the defendant requested dismissal of the case.

The Commercial Court of First Instance noted that the plaintiff was the cargo receiver and holder of the bill of lading, and the defendant was the carrier. While the bill of lading referenced a charterparty, the Court held that for the arbitration clause within the charterparty to apply, the defendant needed to prove that the charterparty was also delivered to the plaintiff alongside the bill of lading. Since this was not demonstrated, the defendant's arbitration objection was rejected.

The Court found that the bill of lading, dated 24 May 2015, was issued as 'clean on board', confirming that the cargo was loaded at the port of departure in good condition, with an appropriate moisture level and free of damage. The vessel was deemed seaworthy and fit for voyage and cargo. However, inspections at the port of discharge revealed that the cargo was damaged and unusable. The Court determined that the damage occurred during the carriage due to inadequate ventilation of the cargo holds, resulting in condensation. The Court also noted that the defendant failed to provide evidence or claims supporting exoneration from liability. Reports indicated that the entire cargo was damaged. The Court acknowledged that the plaintiff sold the damaged goods, generating revenue of TRY 535,148.35. The Court also ruled that the payment of USD 67,666.91 made by the insurer should be considered during enforcement. It held that the claim for the portion of the debt added on 26 February 2020, beyond the one-year statutory period for objections, was time-barred. As such, the Court based its decision on the amount stated in the initial lawsuit.

The Court partially upheld the plaintiff's claims, annulling the objection regarding the principal debt of TRY 524,695.27, allowing the enforcement proceedings to continue for this amount.

The defendant appealed unsuccessfully to the Regional Court of Appeal. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal dismissed

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant's request for rectification, agreeing with the lower Courts' decisions and finding no error in their reasoning or conclusions.