This case involved a claim by a Portuguese company against an Italian carrier for damage to 165,000 litres of red wine that had deteriorated due to contact with detergent residues in the hold of the ship in which the wine was transported. The plaintiff's clients told it that the wine had a 'strange taste' and that they experienced 'a reaction of deep displeasure and rejection' after ingesting one or more drinks of this wine.

The defendant carrier invoked the expiry of the plaintiff's right to claim, since its action was brought after the period of one year that the plaintiff had to bring the claim to court. It also contested the plea in law and did not accept any liability for the alleged deterioration of the wine.

The court of first instance held for the defendant carrier and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff appealed to the Lisbon Court of Appeal.

Held: Appeal dismissed; judgment under appeal upheld.

The plaintiff questions the application of art 3.6 of the Brussels Convention (the Hague Rules), arguing that it should only apply in Portugal if the bill of lading was issued in Portuguese territory, which did not occur. In this case, the agreement was to transport wine by sea from Italy to Portugal, according to the bill of lading, which was issued in Gallipoli, Italy. Do the Hague Rules apply to this case? Portugal acceded to the Hague Rules by letter published in the DG of 02.06.32, arts 1-8 of which were incorporated into the Portuguese legal order by Dec No 37/748 of 1 February 1950, as was the case with Italy, which has also acceded to the Brussels Convention, as the judgment under appeal states. According to art 10 of that Convention, '[t]he provisions of this Convention shall apply to all bills of lading issued in any of the contracting States'.

Article 3.6 of the abovementioned Brussels Convention provides that '[i]n any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless suit is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered'. The plaintiff accepts that the action was brought after the expiry of the said period. However, it submits that, since it was only aware of the nature and origin of the damage after the discharge, it is only from the date of knowledge that the time limit for bringing the action should commence.

Since the goods were delivered to the plaintiff in early December 1998, the action could have been brought in a timely manner until early December 1999, which the plaintiff could have done since, as it claimed, it became aware of the cause of the deterioration of the wine on 13 July 1999, with the report attributing the deterioration of the wine to 'detergent residues in the hold'.