This was an appeal in cassation against the judgment of the Montpellier Court of Appeal, 4 December 1986.

When approaching the port of Sète (France), where it was to unload a cargo of timber loaded in a Philippines port, the vessel Zambezy was diverted because of the obstruction of the entrance to the port by fishers engaged in industrial action carried out simultaneously in a number of French ports. The vessel diverted to Barcelona (Spain), ​​where the goods were unloaded, before being transported by rail to Sète. The Société Méridionale des Bois et Matérieux (MBM), the receiver of the timber cargo, sued the master of the ship and Secam, the agent of the shipowner, for compensation for the damages that it had suffered because of the diversion of the goods.

MBM and its insurer, Malayan Insurance, criticised the judgment for having rejected their argument that the Hague-Visby Rules should not be applied in this case. They argued that the Convention would not normally be applicable since the country of loading had not ratified it, and that, in these circumstances, it did not matter that cl 2 of the bill of lading provided for the application of the Hague-Visby Rules when the legislation of the destination country refers to it for cargos to which national law is not obligatorily, and not contractually, applicable. They argued that domestic French law must be applied in this case, and that, by applying the Hague-Visby Rules to the carriage in question, although the loading took place from a port belonging to a country which has not ratified the Rules, the Court of Appeal violated the provisions of art 16 of the Law of 18 June 1966.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

After noting that the bill of lading included a clause paramount providing that, where the loading had taken place in a port of a country which had not acceded to the Hague-Visby Rules, the carriage would nonetheless be subject to the Rules, the Court of Appeal, referring to the constitutional rule according to which international treaties or agreements regularly ratified and published have an authority superior to that of domestic laws, rightly decided that the carriage dispute was subject to the Hague-Visby Rules.