Expesa Fish SA (the plaintiff) claimed for damage to a cargo of 878 boxes of seafood carried from Agadir, Morroco, to Barcelona, Spain, on the MV Inezgane. Cie de Navigation du Detroit was the carrier, and Naviera Odiel Contenedores SA (the defendant) was its agent at the port of Barcelona. The damage occurred due to a failure in the refrigerating system that caused the seafood to defrost. The plaintiff alleged an infraction of arts 3 and 4 of the Hague Rules.

The plaintiff grounded its claim against the agent in art 586 of the Code of Commerce (the CCom) and art 3 of the Law on Carriage of Goods by Sea of 22 December 1949 (the LCGS 1949) that assign the carrier's liabilities to the agent. The LCGS 1949 introduced the Hague Rules into the Spanish legal system with some modifications. Article 3 of the LCGS provides a more extensive concept of the carrier stating that 'in respect of the previous article "carrier" shall mean the owner of the vessel who equips, hires the crew, victuals and exploits it at its own risk, and also the person in charge of representing the vessel in the port in which it is located'. Hence, the agent was liable as the carrier. On 16 November 1991, the Protocols of 1968 and 1979 were ratified by Spain, introducing the Hague-Visby Rules and the SDR Protocol, which do not contain a similar provision. The defendant alleged that the claim was time-barred (caducada), that there was a lack of legal standing of both parties, and that it was entitled to limitation of liability. The first instance Court admitted the claim and ordered the defendant to pay compensation in full. On appeal, the decision was reversed. The Court of Appeal held that a new law on ports established a distinction between the liabilities of the carrier and its agent and that a new social reality obliged the Court to release the agent from liability. The plaintiff recurred this decision in cassation before the Tribunal Supremo/Supreme Court (SC).

Held: The SC reversed the decision and ordered the defendant to pay. The SC stated that, although Spain had ratified the Hague-Visby Rules, they, where applicable, did not exclude the application of the CCom in so far as it is not contradictory to them. It is because the Rules are not a complete system. Therefore, the agent, as representative of the carrier, is held liable for the damage. This is according to art 3 of the LCGS 1949 and art 586 of the CCom, provisions that were not overruled by the adoption of the Hague-Visby Rules. Furthermore, art 3 of the Protocol of 1968 introduces art 4 bis.2, which refers to claims for contractual or non-contractual liability brought against an agent or servant of the carrier, who was not an independent contractor, stating that such agents or servants shall be entitled to avail themselves of the liability exemptions and limitations that the carrier may rely on under the Rules. The Spanish jurisprudence had consistently applied the LCGS 1949 even after the passage of the new Rules, highlighting the substantial coincidence between these two provisions.