This case arose from the sinking of the MOL Comfort. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd was the builder of the vessel. On 1 June 2013, Kingston shipped cargo valued at USD 49,710.24 from Ningbo to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (Mitsui), as carrier, issued the bill of lading. On 17 June 2013, the vessel sank in the Indian Ocean, resulting in the total loss of the cargo on board. Kingston then sued the carrier in China. The Ningbo Maritime Court dismissed Kingston’s claims at first instance, and Kingston appealed to the Zhejiang High People's Court.

Held: Kingston's claims were dismissed.

Kingston argued that Chinese law should apply, while Mitsui contended that Japanese law should apply pursuant to the terms on the reverse side of the bill of lading, and that the Hague-Visby Rules should also apply. The Court held that the clause was a standard term pre-drafted by the carrier. Since the carrier had not given notice or explanation of the clause, the clause was ineffective. The case was therefore governed by Chinese law. 

Mitsui argued that the vessel suffered from a latent design defect. It submitted investigation reports from ClassNK and Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, indicating that this type of vessel had insufficient design safety margins, causing deformation of the bottom shell and to hull fracture. The Court held that, although the vessel could not be salvaged after the sinking and the onboard data had also been lost, the results of inspections of sister ships, simulation tests, and expert opinions were sufficient to establish that the latent design defect was the most likely cause of the sinking. 

The Court then considered whether Mitsui could rely on art 51.1.11 of the Maritime Code of the PRC (the Maritime Code), which provides 'latent defect of the ship not discoverable by due diligence' and reflects art 4.2.p of the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules. Since the design defect was not discoverable by due diligence, and Mitsui had maintained the vessel properly and there was no overload, the Court held that Mitsui was exempt from liability.