On 8 March 1991, the ship Heidberg, flying the German flag, left the port of Bordeaux. The ship collided with Shell’s petrol installations, causing serious damage to them. The collision happened while the master had left the fluvial pilot and a seafarer alone on the bridge in order to perform ballasting in the engine room. 

On 23 September 1993, the Commercial Court delivered the first judgment. The court dismissed the shipowner’s application to limit its liability. On 31 May 2005 the Bordeaux Court of Appeal upheld the Commercial Court judgment. On 20 October 2007 the shipowner lodged a first appeal before the Cour de Cassation. The Court dismissed the decision of the Court of Appeal, due to procedural issues. The Bordeaux Court of Appeal had to judge the case a second time. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Commercial Court. 

The Court of Appeal held that the accident was the result of the captain’s nautical failure. As a consequence, Shell had not proved behaviour prohibited by art 4 of the LLMC 1976, and the shipowner could invoke limitation of liability. Shell and Groupama insurance claimed compensation from the shipowners and MC, the captain of the ship. Shell, the appellant, brought another appeal to the Cour de Cassation. The shipowners and MC were the respondents. The issue was whether the shipowners had the right to limit their liability. 

Shell, who was the claimant in the first appeal, claimed that the Court of Appeal had not researched if the nautical failure was an inexcusable mistake made by the shipowners. 

In the second appeal, Groupama, who was the insurer of the goods, argued that the Court of Appeal erred in considering that the captain’s mistake was a nautical fault. Groupama argued that, in order to exonerate the shipowner from liability, the nautical fault of the master, except as provided for in art 4.2.a of the Hague Rules, must have been the sole cause of the damage to the goods; and that the nautical nature of an operation does not necessarily entail the nautical character of the fault committed in connection with this operation. Groupama claimed that it followed from the findings of the Court of Appeal that, if the damage occurred as a result of the fault of the master who had left the bridge to carry out ballasting operations, this fault, of a nautical nature, was itself only the consequence of a previous fault of not having filled the ballast tanks before the ship left the dock. The latter omission was in the nature of a commercial fault, since it was foreign to the stability and safety of the vessel and was intended only to 'save time' in the interests of economy and profitability. The Court of Appeal had therefore violated art 4.2.a of the Hague Rules. 

Held: As to the first appeal, under arts 1-2 and 4 of the LLMC 1976, the shipowner, defined as the owner, charterer, manager and operator of a seagoing ship are not entitled to limit their liability if it is proved that the loss resulted from their personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result. The fact that the ship and the composition of the crew comply with regulations and that the crew has the required qualifications is not sufficient to exclude the inexcusable fault of the shipowner. It is the responsibility of a vessel equipped with a crew to navigate to optimum safety conditions. In the present case, in order to rule out the existence of an inexcusable fault on the part of the shipowners of the Heidberg barring their ability to limit their liability for the accident, the Court of Appeal, after holding that the ship was in good working order, that the documents relating to the tonnage and the composition of the crew were regular and had been endorsed by the competent German authorities, that the German legislation on working time had been respected, and finally that the evidence of the incompetence of the seafarers or the lack of cohesion of the crew was not established, considered that the accident and the consequent serious damage did not result from the complaints against the shipowners, such as the insufficient number of officers or the incompetence of the seafarers, but the nautical fault of the master who had been absent from the bridge in a dangerous navigation zone to carry out a ballasting operation. Shell Oil and Groupama therefore had not demonstrated how the shipowners would have committed an inexcusable fault due to crew work organization, ship safety and operating constraints. 

It followed from the finding that the shipowners had not committed any fault within the meaning of art 4 of LLMC 1976 that Groupama's appeal also failed.