A Danish company, Cabcon A/S (Cabcon), bought 108 cartons of electronic relays for machine control units on FOB terms from a Chinese company, Hongfa Europe GmbH (Hongfa). DSV Ocean Transport A/S (DSV) was responsible for through carriage of the goods from Hongfa's warehouse in China to Denmark. Hongfa forwarded to DSV a packing list and an invoice issued to Cabcon on 20 July 2021. On 26 July 2021, DSV received the goods from Hongfa without noting any reservations. DSV issued a bill of lading on 15 August 2021, which stated '5 Pallet(s)' under the heading 'Number and Kind of Packages'.

On 22 October 2021, the goods were delivered in Brøndby, Denmark. Cabcon accepted delivery with reservations for damage and mould. The goods were subsequently inspected by Dan Inspection ApS. The inspector found that the packaging had been damp, as the cardboard showed signs of having dried out after having being exposed to water. Further, there was moisture and mould on both the cartons and pallets, as well as evidence of an infestation of cockroaches, beetles, and other insects. The inspector concluded that the damage most likely occurred as a result of the goods being left outdoors in severe weather before being stuffed into the container in China in a wet condition. This moisture led to mould and odour developing, as well as the probable hatching of insect larvae, during transport.

The Danish cargo insurer, Topdanmark Forsikring A/S (Topdanmark), compensated Cabcon for its loss and then brought a claim against DSV for DKK 258,665.55.

DSV argued that Topdanmark's claim was partly undocumented, and that DSV's liability was limited to the equivalent value in DKK of 5 packages under ss 280 and 281 of the Danish Merchant Shipping Act (the MSA).

[Section 280 of the MSA provides:

1. The liability of the carrier shall not exceed 667 SDR for each package or other shipping unit or 2 SDR per kilogram of gross weight of the goods lost, damaged or delayed, whichever is the higher. SDR shall mean the monetary unit dealt with in section 152(2).

2. The liability of the carrier for delay in delivery shall be limited to an amount equivalent to two-and-a-half times the freight payable for the goods delayed. Liability shall not, however, exceed the total freight payable under the contract of carriage.

3. The aggregate liability of the carrier under subsections 1 and 2 shall not exceed the limitation which would be established under subsection 1 for total loss of the goods with respect to which such liability was incurred.

Cp art 4.5.a of the Hague-Visby Rules and arts 6.1.b and 6.1.c of the Hamburg Rules.

Section 281 of the MSA provides:

Where a container, pallet or similar article of transport is used to consolidate goods, each package or other shipping units enumerated in the transport document, as packed in such article of transport shall be deemed a package or a shipping unit with respect to section 280. Except as aforesaid the goods in such article of transport shall be deemed one shipping unit. In cases where the article of transport itself has been lost or damaged, that article of transport, if not owned or otherwise supplied by the carrier, shall be considered one separate shipping unit.

Cp art 4.5.c of the Hague-Visby Rules and arts 6.2.a and 6.2.b of the Hamburg Rules.]

In this regard, DSV relied on the reference to '5 Pallet(s)' in the bill of lading.

Held: Judgment in favour of Topdanmark.

In the bill of lading issued by DSV, '5 Pallet(s)' is listed under 'Number and Kind of Packages', while '5PLT=108CTNS 4020138267' is listed under 'Description of Goods'. Finally, '5 PLT' is listed under 'Packages'.

The Court finds on the basis of the contents of the bill of lading, together with the instructions from Hongfa in the packing list of 20 July 2021, and the invoice of 27 July 2021, that the parties' agreement related to the carriage of the 108 cartons listed. The Court notes that it would have been more correct to list the number of parcels as 108 under 'Number and Kinds of Packages', but that the ambiguities in the bill of lading must be construed against DSV as the designer of the bill.

Therefore, the package limitation of liability under MSA ss 280(1) and 281 should be calculated based on the 108 cartons carried, which results in a package limitation of liability which is higher than the total claim brought by Topdanmark.

However, the Court finds that Topdanmark has not documented the full extent of its claim. Topdanmark has proved, solely on the basis of the invoice presented during the case, that Cabcon suffered a loss of DKK 235,125.21. Topdanmark's compensation claim must thus be calculated on the basis of this amount.