This was an appeal from a Reykjavík District Court judgment in favour of the respondent. The appellant transported a reefer container loaded with frozen bread for the respondent from the Netherlands to Iceland. The sea waybill specified that the temperature in the container should be -25°C. The container arrived in Iceland on 23 January 2006. The appellant was required to transport the container to the respondent's premises. However, it was not connected to electricity and the cargo had to be destroyed as its temperature was not as specified.

The parties agreed that the terms of the waybill applied from the beginning of the transport until delivery, which was to take place at the respondent's place of business. However, the appellant claimed that by uncoupling and unloading the container at the correct delivery point, delivery of the container had taken place within the meaning of cl 9(1) of the waybill, and that risk was thereby transferred to the respondent.

The respondent argued that delivery must be based on its acceptance of the cargo. Otherwise, the respondent would not be aware of the arrival of the container and would not be able to connect it to electricity. Since proof of receipt of the cargo was not provided by way of a receipt of a delivery note or in some other manner, the appellant was liable for the damage, as the refrigerated container remained at the risk of the carrier.

Held: The decision below is affirmed.

Clause 9(1) of Samskip's standard terms states: 'The carrier is liable for loss or damage to cargo from the time it takes delivery of the cargo until delivery has taken place.'

The dispute is about when the container was left on the respondent's premises. The delivery note states that the container was delivered on 24 January 2006 at 00h00. Nothing has been written in the boxes on the note about the start and end of the transport, the number of kms or the length of the waiting time. However, both drivers who were responsible for the transport to and from the respondent's premises testified in Court that the transport of the containers took place around noon.

The respondent could easily have been unaware that the container in question had been transported to its premises.

According to art 51 of the Shipping Act/Siglingalög No 34/1985 (the Act) [which gives domestic effect to art 3.2 of the Hague-Visby Rules], a carrier 'shall properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods carried'. According to cl 19(b) of the bill of lading, the carrier is not liable for failure of refrigeration equipment provided that it has exercised reasonable care to maintain the refrigeration equipment in an efficient condition before or at the beginning of the carriage.

When a carrier delivers a reefer container, its refrigeration equipment cannot be maintained in an efficient condition unless the consignee is informed of its delivery. The carrier must therefore ensure that the consignee is aware of the delivery of such a container on the basis of a sea waybill by obtaining its receipt on a delivery note or in some other verifiable manner. Since the appellant has not succeeded in proving that the respondent received such knowledge, it must be considered that it was at its risk that the refrigeration equipment of the refrigerated container was not maintained in an efficient condition after it was left on the respondent's premises.