On 25 October 2002, the fishing vessel O Boavista, which was registered in Spain and owned by Recesmar SL (Recesmar), sank after being impacted by the MV Mallorquin, which was registered in Portugal and owned by Naviera Delta SA (Delta). Recesmar alleged that the collision was the total responsibility of the MV Mallorquin and claimed for compensation.

Delta invoked the application of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (Collision Convention 1910), arguing that the responsibility must be apportioned between both vessels and alleged the action was time-barred. In addition, it filed a counter-claim for the damage suffered by its ship and invoked limitation of liability according to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (LLMC 1976).

The first instance court ordered the defendant to pay part of the compensation and dismissed the counter-claim. On appeal, the court partially reversed the lower court’s decision and declared the collision was due to common fault, assigning 1/3 of the responsibility to the master of the O Boavista and 2/3 to the master of the MV Mallorquin, thus partially admitting both claims and reducing the amount of compensation to be paid to Recesmar. Both parties recurred the decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC).

Recesmar alleged violation of art 3 and an error in the application of arts 4 and 7 of the Collision Convention 1910, and an infringement of arts 1, 2, 6, 12.1 and 15 of the LLMC 1976. Delta argued a violation of art 4 of the Collision Convention 1910.

Held: The Supreme Court modified the decision. Recesmar argued that the Court of Appeal should have applied art 3 of the Collision Convention 1910 (collision caused by the fault of one of the vessels) as the MV Mallorquin acted in breach of rules 6, 15, 16, 17, 34 and 35 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea 1972 (COLREGs). Regarding arts 4 and 7 of the Collision Convention 1910, Recesmar contended that the MV Mallorquin had a greater responsibility. The SC found that the Court of Appeal's categorisation of the collision as the fault of both parties was correct.

Regarding the LLMC 1976, Recesmar argued that this Convention was not applicable to obligations resulting from a collision, because this does not appear in art 2.1. It contended that the Spanish courts should exclude the application of these provisions because they conflict, in relation to Delta, with the elements concerning the residence, place of business and ship's flag stated in arts 15.1 and 15.3 of the LLMC 1976. In addition, Recesmar argued that art 6 of the LLMC 1976 was infringed in relation to art 12.1, regarding the distribution of the fund, stating that the Court of Appeal did not make a calculation according to the Convention. The SC dismissed these arguments because the claimed damages are covered under art 2.1.a of the Convention and because the exclusions contained in art 15 must be established by the domestic legislature, which has not done so. Regarding the distribution, the SC said that this argument was irrelevant given the court's findings below.

Delta argued a violation of art 4 of the Collision Convention 1910 on the ground that the Court of Appeal did not consider the damages claimed in the counter-claim. The Court of Appeal held that there was only one relevant damage that was suffered by the fishing vessel and only deducted from the compensation claimed by Recesmar the proportion of its liability without considering the damage to the MV Mallorquin. The SC found that there was no justification to consider only one side of the damage. Hence, both parties have the right to be compensated according to art 4 of the Collision Convention 1910 and Recesmar must compensate Delta for 1/3 of the damage of the MV Mallorquin.