The respondent insurer insured Isolux Wat SA (Isolux) for the carriage by sea from Turku, Finland, to Doha, Qatar, of 82 coils of high-voltage underground cable which Isolux had acquired from Pirelli Cables y Sistemas SA. Isolux entrusted the arrangement of the transport to its agent, Estellez SA, which, in turn, contracted with Bilbao Maritime Eurogulf SL on behalf of the appellant carrier, Shipping Corp of Saudi Arabia Ltd. The bill of lading was negotiated, signed, and issued in Bilbao by Marítima Eurogulf SL as the general agent of the appellant carrier.

The first phase of the transport from Turku to Bremen was carried out without particular incident. When the coils arrived at Bremen, inconsequential damage to the outer packaging was noticed. The cargo was transhipped in Bremen onto the Wadji Arab. The master issued a 'clean on board' bill of lading. When the Wadji Arab arrived in Doha, it was found that the cargo had suffered significant damage in the form of broken packaging and crushed and deformed coils. Eight coils were unusable, and four more needed to be repaired.

The respondent insurer claimed EUR 831,746.70 from the appellant carrier. The carrier argued that the Court of first instance in Bilbao had no international jurisdiction, based on cl 33 of the bill of lading which stated: 'Jurisdiction: the contract evidenced by this bill of lading shall be governed by the Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and any disputes shall be determined in Jeddah in accordance with the Law of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, excluding the jurisdiction of the Courts of any other country.' The carrier further argued that it was not responsible for loading and stowage of the goods, as the bill of lading contained a 'free in/liner out' clause (meaning loading and stowage by the shipper and unloading at destination by the carrier), and that the ship's master filed a protest in Bilbao on the basis of storm conditions which were so intense that the pilot could not leave the ship until it was in port. The damage thus occurred due to force majeure, as specified in art 4.2.d of the Hague-Visby Rules. In the alternative, the carrier invoked limitation of liability in accordance with art 4.5 of the Hague-Visby Rules.

The Court of first instance ordered the carrier to pay the full amount claimed, ie EUR 831,746.70. The carrier appealed to the Provincial Court of Vizcaya, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the first instance decision. The carrier appealed to the Supreme Court against the jurisdictional findings and merits of the decisions below.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

As to jurisdiction, Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 is limited to setting rules of jurisdiction for those parties domiciled in the Member States of the European Union, and takes the domicile of the defendant as the jurisdiction or general criterion. As the carrier is not domiciled in any Member State, there is no justification for it to insist that Regulation 44/2001 be applied. Nonetheless, if there was no evidence that the jurisdiction clause exceeded any limit imposed on the autonomy of the will of the contracting parties in this matter, the conclusion would be evident: if the parties had really agreed on submission to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Saudi Arabia, it would have to be recognised. However, the Court of Appeal denied that this jurisdiction agreement really existed, because the shipper's acceptance of it was not recorded. The assessment of that evidence is not to be reviewed in this extraordinary appeal. Finally, the carrier's invocation of 3.8 of the Hague-Visby Rules lacks justification since this rule was not applied to the jurisdiction clause by the appellate Court.

Further, the carrier denounces the infringement of art 4.5 of the Hague-Visby Rules. This provision establishes a limit to the liability of the carrier responsible for the damage caused to the cargo, when the nature and value of the merchandise declared by the shipper is not stated in the bill of lading. The carrier alleges that the Courts below did not correctly interpret or apply the criteria established in art 4.5. However, the appellate Court stated in its ruling that its decision to award the full claim did not arise from a different view from the carrier with respect to the criteria applied to establish the aforementioned limit. Rather, the Court found that the extent of damage to the cargo was greater than had originally been considered. In short, what the carrier intends with this appeal is a review, not of the criteria for determining its limit of liability, but of the assessment of the evidence that led the Courts below to identify the extent of the damage. That is not a matter to be reviewed on an appeal in cassation.