This was an appeal in cassation from the judgment of the Versailles Court of Appeal, 7 October 2014. Laser arranged with Schenker, a freight forwarder, for the transport of parcels containing decorative articles manufactured by Honest Asia Ltd, which had provided the parcels stuffed into four containers. The goods were destined for Yves Rocher. For the maritime leg of the transport, between the ports of Yantian (China) and Le Havre (France), Schenker selected CMA CGM as the maritime carrier. The goods were carried on the Carmen under a bill of lading. After the unloading of the containers by the general port handling company GMP, and following a visit from the customs administration, a new seal was affixed by Schenker on one of the containers delivered to BLD Tramar, the logistics company of Yves Rocher, which made reservations because of missing items, which were then confirmed by an agreed expert opinion. Laser claimed against Schenker for its losses. Schenker in turn sought recourse from CMA CGM and GMP.

The Court of Appeal held 'as an hypothesis' that the inconsistencies in the quantities declared by Honest Asia Ltd and Laser were of a nature to 'cast doubt' on the volumes mentioned, and that neither the weight deficit of the disputed container on arrival of the ship, nor the fact of the weighing of the disputed goods when they entered the terminal at the loading port of Yantian had been established, as the translator/interpreter was unable to translate the pre-land transport document in Shenzhen, China.

Held: Partial cassation.

It was for Schenker, who was responsible for the maritime carrier, to demonstrate the incomplete nature of the cargo loaded on board, such as to constitute an act or an omission of the shipper exonerating the carrier from its full liability. By imposing on the shipper the burden of proof of the absence of missing cargo at the departure of the ship, the Court of Appeal violated art 4.2.i of the Hague-Visby Rules.

For these reasons, the judgment rendered on 7 October 2014 between the parties by the Versailles Court of Appeal is struck down and annulled, but only in that it declares Laser responsible for the missing goods, and in that it rejects Laser's claims and declares its indemnity claim moot. On these points, the case and the parties are returned to the position where they were before the aforementioned judgment and the case is referred back to the Versailles Court of Appeal, differently constituted, to be decided correctly.