Distribuciones Agropecuarias de Aragón SL (Disagro) loaded 7,000 tons of cereal on the MV Tiverton at Seville, Spain, and requested a bill of lading for this quantity. Tiverton Shipping Company (Tiverton), the shipowner, refused the request, alleging that it had received only 6,801 tons. Disagro proceeded to arrest the vessel, demanding the bill of lading. The Court admitted the petition and ordered the arrest, subject to the deposit of counter-security of EUR 191,800. The Court also fixed a period of 30 days to file an action according to art 7.2 of the International Convention Relating to the Arrest of Sea-Going Ships 1952 (the Arrest Convention 1952). Tiverton appeared in Court and challenged the arrest, requesting the urgent release of the vessel. The parties agreed to release the ship from arrest subject to the issuance of the bill of lading for the quantity Disagro alleged was loaded and the release of the counter-security. This agreement was without prejudice to the result of the challenge to the arrest and the liabilities for possible damages that they may have caused to each other. The Court admitted the agreement, released the ship from arrest and returned the counter-security to the arresting party. The challenge to the arrest was later accepted, and the Court ordered Disagro to pay costs as the lawsuit was not filed within the period set by the Court. Disagro appealed, and the Court of Appeal (CA) reversed the decision. The CA dismissed Tiverton's challenge as the agreement reached by the parties had ended the arrest, and ordered Tiverton to pay costs.

Tiverton filed a lawsuit for judicial error before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC). It argued that the CA confused the parties' agreement to release the ship from arrest with a settlement agreement on the claim's merits. That construction, alleged the shipowner, prevented its opportunity to defend its rights. The shipowner alleged that the agreement to release the vessel from arrest was made following art 4 of the International Convention on the Arrest of Ships 1999, (the Arrest Convention 1999). Article 4.3 establishes that the release of the ship from arrest upon the provision of security 'shall not be construed as an acknowledgement of liability nor as a waiver of any defence or any right to limit liability'.

Held: The SC dismissed the lawsuit. The SC stated that the CA did not establish that the parties had settled the merits of the claims, but that once the arrest was lifted and the counter-security returned, the phase of precautionary measures was fully finalised and did not admit any challenge. Nor could the Court declare the petitioner's liability for not filing its lawsuit within the period set by the Court because it received the bill of lading it requested due to the agreement. It is incorrect that the agreement was limited to set the security for the release, according to art 4 of the Arrest Convention 1999. That agreement did not make Tiverton provide security as a condition to release of the ship from arrest. That would have been intended to keep the security at the order of the Court. The agreement rather consisted of issuing a bill of lading with the details requested by the arresting party and the release of the counter-security. That left the arrest without effect. Therefore, it was not based on art 4 of the Arrest Convention 1999, which is similar to art 746 ff of the Civil Procedure Law (CPL). The delivery of the bill of lading also does not constitutes security replacing the ship. It was the satisfaction of Disagro’s claim, even if the parties reserved their rights to file a complaint for damages that any of them may have suffered. Article 746 ff of the CPL applies when the precautionary measures have not ended because there is a security provided by the defendant in favour of the claimant, and there is also counter-security for possible damages caused to the defendant. In this case, Tiverton did not provide any security; nor did the counter-security furnished by Disagro remain affected. Tiverton simply delivered the bill of lading that Disagro requested. Therefore, it was not procedurally viable to challenge the arrest. The lifting of the arrest neither supposed an acceptance of liability nor the waiver of any defence. The CA did not declare that the lower Court had determined any conflict between the parties. Tiverton could still commence proceedings against Disagro on the merits of the claim, but Disagro could not be forced to file a lawsuit to obtain a bill of lading that it had already received.