AP Moller-Maersk A/S (Maersk) was the carrier and Shanghai Chanlian Xieyun Logistics Co Ltd Shenzhen Branch (Chanlian) was the shipper in this case. Maersk fulfilled its duty under the carriage contract by providing containers to load the goods into and by delivering the goods to the destination.

According to the carriage contract, the late return of containers would generate container detention fees. The goods were delivered on 23 February 2010. However, Chanlian failed to take delivery of the goods. The container detention fees were chargeable from 1 March 2010. The goods were finally auctioned by local customs. Maersk was notified by customs about the auction on 28 February 2011 and the empty containers were delivered to Maersk on the same day.

Maersk filed a claim against Chanlian for the unpaid container detention fees on 27 February 2012. Chanlian Shenzhen argued that Maersk's claim fell outside the one-year time bar.

Both the first and second instance courts held that, according to the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Limitation of Action for the Carrier's Claim for Compensation to the Consignor, Consignee, or Holder of the Bill of Lading with Regard to Carriage of Goods by Sea (SPC Reply), the time bar in this case should be one year, commencing from the day when Maersk knew or ought to have known that its rights had been infringed. The limitation period for Maersk to exercise its right should start running from 28 February 2011. Therefore, Maersk's claim was within the limitation period.

Chanlian applied for a retrial to the Supreme People’s Court.

Held: Retrial granted.

Maersk had a right to file a claim against Chanlian regarding the container detention fees. The one-year limitation period which is stated in the SPC Reply was drafted on the basis of art 257 of the Maritime Code of the PRC. Article 257 states that '[t]he limitation period for claims against the carrier with regard to the carriage of goods by sea is one year, counting from the day on which the goods were delivered or should have been delivered by the carrier'. The wording of art 257 of the Maritime Code of the PRC is in line with art 3.6 of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules. Based on the principle of equality, the Supreme People' Court extended the application of this one-year time bar in its Reply to cases where carriers' rights have been infringed by shippers.

In this case, Maersk should have known that its rights had been infringed from 1 March 2010, since that was the first day when container detention fees became payable. Its claim was therefore time-barred.