On 16 August 2000, a collision took place between the MV Mar Rocio and the MV SKS Trinity in the waters of the Strait of Gibraltar. SKS Obo Shipping Ltd, the owner of the MV SKS Trinity, claimed for compensation against Naviera Marot SA (the defendant), the owner of the MV Mar Rocio. The defendant and its insurance company, Banco Vitalicio de España SA, also commenced proceedings against SKS Obo Shipping Ltd for the same collision. The proceedings were accumulated. On 20 November 2003, the first instance court declared that the collision was the fault of both vessels according to art 4 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law with respect to Collisions between Vessels 1910 (Collision Convention 1910). The court apportioned the liability at 80% for the MV Mar Rocio and 20% for the MV SKS Trinity. The court also declared that SKS Obo Shipping Ltd was entitled to claim compensation for damages against the defendant in another proceeding. Furthermore, the court also granted the defendant's petition to limit its liability according to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 (LLMC 1976).

SKS Obo Shipping Ltd and SKS Obo Ltd (the plaintiffs) filed another claim against the defendant. The plaintiffs claimed actual and consequential damages arising from the collision, in the apportionment of liability, and under the limits of liability established in the decision of 20 November 2003. The plaintiff invoked arts 1, 4 and 13 of the Collision Convention 1910. The defendant argued that SKS Obo Shipping Ltd was not entitled to claim, that its claim was time-barred according to art 7 of the Collision Convention 1910, that a claim for loss of profits was inadmissible, and invoked the exception of res iudicata. The first instance court admitted the claim partially and ordered the defendant to pay compensation based on the 80% liability apportioned by the previous decision. This court also declared that the right of the defendant to limit liability could not exceed the amount established in that decision. The defendant appealed the decision.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision and only modified the amount of compensation. The defendant recurred the decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC). The defendant alleged an infraction of art 7 of the Collision Convention 1910, arguing that only SKS Obo Shipping Ltd had filed a valid claim within the two-year time limitation period established in that provision. Hence, in its opinion, the claim of SKS Obo Ltd was time-barred. The second argument against the decision was an infraction of art 8.1 of the LLMC 1976, alleging that the unit of account was converted into Euros incorrectly.

Held: The SC affirmed the decision. Regarding the time-bar limitation, the SC noted that the first instance court had rejected that defence as it considered that there was a relationship of solidarity between the plaintiffs, which meant that a claim filed by one of the creditors benefited both of them. Although the Court of Appeal had declared that there was no evidence of a solidarity contract, it had concluded that SKS Obo Shipping Ltd and SKS Obo Ltd were nevertheless solidarity creditors. In any case, stated the SC, the claim of SKS Obo Shipping Ltd against the defendant pursued a benefit for both plaintiffs and must be considered as an exclusive representative action capable of producing an interruption of the time bar.

Regarding art 8.1 of the LLMC 1976, the SC rejected the argument because the Court of Appeal, on this aspect, only applied the criteria stated in the decision of 20 November 2003, which had the effect that the issue was res iudicata.