The Sonia, owned by Golden Stavraetos Maritime Inc (the respondent), was voyage chartered to Trafigura Beheer BV (the appellant). The Hague-Visby Rules were incorporated into the voyage charterparty. The vessel loaded a cargo of fuel oil in Saudi Arabia for delivery at Mombasa, Kenya. Shortly after sailing, the parties varied the destination to Lagos, Nigeria. The vessel arrived off Lagos on 2 February 2000 when notice of readiness was tendered. The intended purchaser refused delivery because it was discovered that the cargo was off-specification. Thereafter, the vessel was ordered by the appellant to proceed to Abidjan, Ivory Coast, where it arrived on 13 February. On 7 March 2000, the appellant indicated that it wanted to sell the cargo in order to mitigate its loss, and the parties entered into an agreement for the vessel to proceed from Abidjan to Greece at a new freight rate and with a new period of laytime. The vessel proceeded to Greece in compliance with the appellant's requests. It tendered notice of readiness on 27 March 2000 and the discharge of the cargo was completed on 1 April 2000.

On 27 March 2001, the appellant issued proceedings, alleging that the respondent was in breach of arts 3.1 and 3.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules in tendering notice of readiness at Lagos when the cargo had been contaminated by residues of soya bean oil in the vessel's tanks. The respondent applied for summary judgment on the basis that the claim was time-barred under art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules. The respondent contended that the one-year period should run from the date that the goods should have been delivered at Lagos. The voyage from Abidjan to Greece was an entirely new voyage to a different discharge port, and the delivery at Greece could not fairly be held to have been under the contract of carriage. Accordingly, there was no delivery of the cargo within art 3.6.

The first instance Court held in favour of the respondent. The appellant appealed. The issue before the Court was whether there was 'delivery' of the cargo at Greece within the meaning of art 3.6 of Hague-Visby Rules.

Held: Appeal allowed.

In determining whether the delivery was delivery in performance of the contract, an important question was whether the delivery was made under an entirely separate and distinct transaction. If, looking at all the circumstances of the case, it could fairly be said that there was delivery under the contract of carriage, even if that contract had been varied in some respects in the light of problems that had arisen during the voyage, it would in general be appropriate to hold that there had been 'delivery' within the meaning of art 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules. If, on the other hand, the delivery was under an entirely separate and distinct transaction it would in general be appropriate to hold that there had been no such 'delivery'. Taking all the circumstances of the present case into account, the Court held that there was 'delivery' of the cargo at Greece within the meaning of art 3.6, and accordingly, the appellant's action was brought within a year of delivery.