This case involved sea carriage of a consignment of frozen fish from China via Rotterdam (the Netherlands) to the United Kingdom, for which Samskip Logistics BV (Samskip) had issued a sea waybill. The carriage was subcontracted by Samskip to CMA CGM SA (CMA CGM). The container was carried from China to Rotterdam on the Cosco Shipping Taurus, and from Rotterdam to Immingham (UK) on the Ara Liverpool. After discharge in Immingham, the local authorities set aside the container because of the high temperatures that had been recorded (-2 to -5^oC, instead of -21^o C). The container was released a few months later, whereupon the consignment of fish was destroyed. Seachill UK Ltd (Seachill), the buyer of the fish, claimed compensation from Samskip.

Held: The claim is rejected.

The District Court of Rotterdam has jurisdiction on the basis of Samskip's general terms and conditions, which contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the Court of Rotterdam, as referred to in art 25 of EU Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. On the basis of these terms and conditions, the Hague-Visby Rules apply, supplemented by Dutch law.

According to art 3.1 of the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier is bound before and at the beginning of the voyage to exercise due diligence for the seaworthiness of the ship, including its cargoworthiness. Furthermore, the carrier is bound to exercise due diligence for the handling of the cargo, including loading, stowing, and discharging, during the entire period of responsibility of the carrier (art 3.2 of the Rules). The carrier may only escape liability if it proves one of the exonerating occurrences of art 4.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules, and the causal connection between such occurrence and the loss. On the other hand, and on the basis of the main evidence rule of art 150 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, the cargo interested party must assert and, when necessary, prove that the loss occurred during the period of the carriage (set by mandatory law), and therefore that the shipment was received in good order.

The statement on the sea waybill that the fish was received on board in China 'in apparent good order and condition' cannot serve as evidence that the fish was in good order at that moment in time. The statement relates to the externally identifiable condition of the packing of the consignment, and does not say anything about the internal condition of the consignment inside the locked and sealed container. It cannot be expected of a carrier, who is not a cargo expert, to open the container and check the condition of the fish and the cartons. The temperature instruction on the documents concern the temperature settings of the refrigeration unit, which in refrigerated transport usually corresponds to the temperature of the air supply. It does not concern the temperature of the fish stowed in the container.

Seachill, Samskip, and CMA CGM have each appointed a surveyor. In their reports, all the surveyors assume that the shipment was not properly stowed in the container in China. The refrigeration unit of the container functioned well, but the cold air (-21^o Celsius) could not flow past the cartons, as a result of which the fish could not be maintained at the correct temperature. In the light of the reasoned objections by Samskip that the fish was not received in good order, substantiated by the photos and conclusions in the survey reports, Seachill has not asserted and sufficiently substantiated that the fish was in good order when it was loaded, which is for Seachill's account.