Vervoer onder cognossement; ladingschade; weigeren invoer lading wegens doorbreking koudeketen; art. IV HVR; art. 8:414 lid 2 BW. Vervoer onder cognossement van een container met diepbevroren octopus van Dakar (Senegal) naar Vigo (Spanje). De lading moest op -18° C worden vervoerd. De inhoud van de buiten aanwezigheid van de vervoerder gestuwde en verzegelde container wordt bij aankomst door de Spaanse gezondheidsautoriteiten wegens een te hoge temperatuur ongeschikt bevonden voor consumptie en vervolgens terugverscheept naar Senegal en daar tegen een lagere prijs verkocht. De ladingschadevordering van de afzender en diens verzekeraar wordt afgewezen. Dat de lading niet in de beoogde goede staat op de plaats van bestemming is afgeleverd en daarmee niet de voorgeschreven temperatuur van -18° C had, betekent nog niet dat de conditie van de lading bij aflevering minder was dan bij inontvangstneming. De goede staat van de lading volgt niet uit het afgegeven schone cognossement, nu dit slechts betrekking heeft op de uiterlijk waarneembare staat van de lading en geen bewijs oplevert van de staat van de inhoud van de verzegelde container. Ook het fytosanitaire certificaat levert geen bewijs op nu het certificaat is gedateerd op 8 juni 2018, maar de inspectie al op 25 mei 2018 heeft plaatsgevonden. Eiseressen hebben geen sluitende informatie gegeven over de staat waarin de lading ten vervoer is afgegeven. Indien uit het schadebeeld in verbinding met hetgeen over de vervoersomstandigheden is gebleken evident is dat de schade moet zijn ontstaan tijdens het vervoer door oorzaken die voor rekening van de vervoerder komen, kan de rechtbank voorbijgaan aan het ontbreken van sluitende informatie over de staat waarin de lading ten vervoer is afgegeven en uit de overige omstandigheden de (al dan niet voorlopige) conclusie trekken dat de schade tijdens de vervoersperiode is ontstaan. Die situatie doet zich hier echter niet voor.
Sea carriage under a bill of lading of a reefer container with frozen octopus from Dakar (Senegal) via Alcegiras (Spain) to Vigo (Spain), to be kept at -18o Celsius. The container was stuffed and sealed without the carrier, Nile Dutch, being present. The container was received for shipment in Dakar in the night of 6-7 June 2018. After arrival in the port of destination, the Spanish health authorities on 25 June 2018 established that the cargo temperature was high, and that the cargo was unfit for consumption. The cargo was not allowed to be imported into Spain, and was therefore shipped back to Senegal and sold at a lower price. The shipper and its insurer claimed compensation for the cargo loss from Nile Dutch.
The claim is rejected. Under the Hague-Visby Rules, the carrier must deliver the container with the cargo of octopus at destination in the same condition as it was received for shipment. That the cargo was not in the (desired) good condition at the place of arrival, and not at the prescribed and agreed temperature, does not in itself mean that the condition of the cargo at delivery was less than it was at the moment of receipt for shipment.
The good condition of the cargo does in this case not follow from the issuance of a 'clean' bill of lading or the phytosanitary certificates. Insufficient information is available about what has happened with the container in the weeks after phytosanitary inspection but before delivery to the carrier and also about the period between the cleaning and freezing of the octopus until the moment it was loaded into the container.
That the cargo was delivered to Nile Dutch in good condition cannot be derived from the fact that the container showed a 'return air temperature' of -18o Celsius shortly after loading. After all, the return air temperature only provides a reliable picture of the temperature of the goods loaded in the container if there is a proper circulation of air in the container, which will only be the case if the goods are stowed properly. The parties have debated the issues of stowage and the assumed deficiencies in the functioning of the refrigeration unit.
If it is evident from the type of damage, in connection with facts that have become evident about conditions during carriage – for instance if the reefer container was not plugged in on board – that the damage must have occurred during the carriage as a result of causes which are for the carrier's account, the Court may ignore the fact that there is no conclusive evidence about the condition in which the cargo was delivered for shipment, and it may draw the (possibly preliminary) conclusion that the damage occurred during the period of carriage from the other circumstances. However, this is not such a case.
It is known and also supported by the stowage instructions submitted by Nile Dutch that the presence of a relatively large amount of air compared to a relatively small cargo volume in a reefer container can influence the effectiveness of the cooling. It cannot be ruled out that the ratio between container volume and cargo volume has led to less effective cooling, which circumstance constitutes insufficient packing, and should remain for AXA's account on the basis of the Hague-Visby Rules.
As Nile Dutch provided a reasoned and substantiated defence against the cargoworthiness of the goods at receipt for shipment, and AXA – although having been given the opportunity to do so – has not provided any further information about the condition of the cargo at the time of receipt for shipment, and as it has not become evident during the further debate that the damage must have arisen during carriage (and not for cause which are for AXA's account), there are insufficient grounds to allow the claim.