Aliança Da Bahia Uruguay SA, acting under an assignment of rights, claimed short shipment of a cargo carried from Montevideo, Uruguay, to Johannesburg, South Africa, by Safmarine Container Line NV (the defendant) pursuant to a multimodal transport arrangement. The container arrived at Port Elizabeth on 1 April 2009. It was carried by rail to the Transnet Spoornet Terminal in City Deep, Johannesburg, where it arrived on 5 April 2009. It remained there until 15 April 2009, when it was carried by road to the warehouse of Santi Container Depot for custom procedures. The consignee received the container on 4 May 2009. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on 30 April 2010.

The defendant alleged the application of the Hague-Visby Rules, which in art 3.6 establishes a one-year limitation period. It argued that the claim was time-barred, because the container was delivered on 5 April 2009 when it arrived at the terminal in City Deep, and the lawsuit was only served on 31 May 2010. As the Code of Commerce (CCom) establishes that the means to interrupt the time limitation is the service of process, that event occurred outside of the one-year period. The first instance Court rejected this defence, stating that the time-bar period is interrupted by filing a lawsuit. The defendant appealed the decision, contending that according to the CCom, the valid act to interrupt prescription is service of process on the defendant.

Held: The Court of Appeal (CA) affirmed the decision. The CA agreed that the Hague-Visby Rules, as incorporated in the law of South Africa, applied to the claim. However, the CA disagreed that the moment to start counting the one-year period was from the date when the cargo arrived at the terminal in City Deep. In the interpretation of the words 'delivery of the goods', referred to in the Rules, the most adequate, logical and reasonable position from which to calculate the time limitation is the moment the cargo is delivered to the consignee. It is the moment when carriage is finalised, and the consignee can assess the damage or losses that the cargo may display, and secure the rights and obligations of all the parties. A report submitted by the defendant stated all the relevant dates concerning this shipment. It proved that the cargo was actually delivered to the consignee on 4 May 2009, and there was no other evidence to suggest that the delivery took place on another date.

Regarding the means of interruption of prescription, it is unnecessary to consider the legal rule in the CCom, because the national law cannot be invoked when there is a provision on the subject in the Hague-Visby Rules. The lower Court correctly concluded that the mere filing of a lawsuit sufficed to interrupt the time limitation. Article 3.6 of the Hague-Visby Rules establishes that in order to interrupt the prescription, the claimant must 'bring a suit'. It is beyond doubt that this term or expression means the filing of a lawsuit. Considering the date of the cargo delivery to the consignee, a lawsuit filed on 30 April 2010 falls within the one-year period.