Laboratorios Alter SA (the plaintiff) claimed for the total loss of a cargo of pharmaceutical products to be carried from Madrid, via the port of Valencia, Spain, to Durban, South Africa. DB Schenker Logistics SAU (the defendant) was appointed by DB Schenker Sudáfrica, which had been selected by the buyer of the cargo to arrange maritime transport. The defendant made a booking with the shipping line Mediterranean Shipping Co (MSC), indicating that the shipment had to be carried at a temperature of -20°C, while in reality it required a temperature of +20°C. The error was detected and corrected before loading the cargo into the container at the seller/shipper's warehouse. This error was reported to the defendant and MSC. However, once the container was at the premises of MSC at the port of Valencia waiting to be loaded on board the MV Mozambique, agents of the defendants changed the temperature back to -20°C. The cargo was exposed to that temperature for 44 hours, causing its total loss.

The defendant denied any contractual relationship with the plaintiff and argued that the action was time-barred according to art 3.6 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules and the local Law of Maritime Navigation of 2014 (LMN). It alleged that, as the cargo was delivered to MSC on 20 February 2015, the lawsuit filed on 17 March 2017 was outside the one-year period established in those provisions. If held liable, the defendant also invoked the package limitation of liability set out in art 4.5 of the Hague/Hague-Visby Rules.

Held: The Court found that it was proven that, although the defendant did not have a contractual obligation, it materially practiced functions of control and supervision of the final phase of the land transportation. The booking note revealed that the defendant had instructed MSC to take care of, carry and preserve sensitive cargo at the wrong temperature. Although the temperature was corrected when the cargo was stowed into the container, the error was not corrected in the booking note. This omission resulted in the container being reset to the wrong temperature once the cargo was on MSC premises. It was also proven that the defendant was informed of the error in the booking note. Having knowledge of the error, the defendant neither verified nor rectified it. Hence, it was held liable in tort. The Hague Rules and Protocols applied to this case. Although these Rules are of strict application to the maritime section of the transport, abundant case law has determined that it is also applicable to the final phase of the land transportation when it is ancillary and proximate in time to the maritime transport.

Regarding the time bar, the Court went on to analyse the interplay between the international regime contained in the Hague-Visby Rules and the local LMN. The Court stated that the courts had construed art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules as establishing a period of expiration (caducidad) which did not allow for interruption, while art 286 of the LMN qualified this period as time limitation (prescripción) which did allow for interruption. However, the wording of art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules does not allow for a clear determination of the existence of an expiration period (caducidad), which has produced contradictory case law. Therefore, the express legislative option for a time-bar regime does not represent a violation by the internal law of a rule established in an International Convention duly in force. Rather, the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the Convention and its application by the national courts in relation to the construction of the local law that refers to that international regulation. Therefore, applying this doctrine, the time limitation period was interrupted by the extrajudicial claims in letters requesting compensation sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 15 April 2015 and 16 June 2016.

On the issue of limitation of liability, the Court stated that the defendant’s behaviour must be considered as constituting gross negligence such that there was knowledge that damage would probably result. That element, according to art 4.5.e of the Hague-Visby Rules, deprives the carrier of the right to rely on the limitation of liability. The defendant was ordered to pay full compensation to the plaintiff.