The parties agreed that the Maritime and Commercial High Court was competent to hear this case if the Court found that there was a venue for the case in Denmark. The question of jurisdiction was separated for individual consideration: see s 253 of the Administration of Justice Act. The plaintiffs, Vestas Wind Systems A/S and Vestas American Wind Technology Inc (Vestas Wind and Vestas American), filed a claim that the case should proceed in Denmark. The defendant, the shipping company Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd (Hyundai), filed a motion to dismiss the action as inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction.

On 8 November 2004, Vestas Wind and Vestas American filed a lawsuit against Hyundai in the Maritime and Commercial High Court, claiming payment of SDR 38,800. The case concerned the issue of liability for damage to four of Vestas Wind's wind turbine gearboxes, which Vestas Wind had sold to Vestas America, and which Hyundai undertook to transport from Denmark to the USA. The relevant bill of lading was issued and signed by Hyundai as 'carrier' in Copenhagen on 15 October 2003, with the following addition to the document under the signature: 'By: Bendix Shipping Ltd as agents only, for the carrier'. The transport concerned two containers, each stuffed with four wind turbine gearboxes. In the bill of lading, where Vestas Wind was listed as shipper and Vestas American as consignee, it was stated that pre-transport was to be performed by truck, with the 'Place of Receipt' being Århus in Denmark. Next to 'Place of Receipt' was an asterisk which referred to the following note at the bottom of the document: '* Applicable only when this document is used as an intermodal transport Bill of Lading.' The bill of lading also stated, among other things, that the 'Port of Loading' was Bremerhaven in Germany, and that the 'Port of Discharge' was San Pedro in California. The transport vessel was the APL Almandine.

The following provision was printed on the back of the bill of lading:

30. Governing Law And Jurisdiction

The claims arising from or in connection with or relating to this Bill of Lading shall be exclusively governed by the law of Korea except otherwise provided in this Bill of Lading. Any and all action concerning custody or carriage under this Bill of Lading whether based on breach of contract, tort or otherwise shall be brought before the Seoul Civil District Court in Korea.

According to the information available, the damage to the wind turbine gearboxes was caused during unloading at the receiving port in San Pedro.

Vestas Wind and Vestas American argued that the 'Place of Receipt' in the bill of lading was Århus, from where the pre-transport departed to the loading port in Bremerhaven. 'Place of Receipt' corresponds to 'the port of loading agreed in the contract of carriage' in the Merchant Shipping Act, s 310(1)(iii), which corresponds broadly to art 21 of the Hamburg Rules. This is mandatory legislation, which overrides the jurisdiction agreement in the bill of lading.

The Maritime Law Committee's Report 1215/1991 on Transportation of Goods states, regarding s 310(1)(iii):

With the proposed formulation, the Maritime Law Committee wished to ensure the plaintiff's right to jurisdiction in the Nordic countries in cases where there are through bills of lading or combined transport documents concerning transport to and from the Nordic countries. In such cases, where transhipment takes place in a port outside the Nordic region, e.g. Rotterdam or Hamburg, a lawsuit can be filed in the Nordic countries, regardless of whether the first stage of transport (for export) or last stage of transport (for import) is done by ship or other means of transport, eg railway. There is, however, a precondition that there is a single transport agreement, and not cases where the importer or the exporter himself has entered into an agreement with various different carriers.

Against this background, it is clear that the fact that there was intermodal transport could not lead to the non-application of s 310(1)(iii) of the Merchant Shipping Act.

This is further supported by the Norwegian Public Reports (NOU 1993:36), Freight transport at sea (Report XV from the Committee for the Revision of Maritime Legislation (Maritime Law Committee)) 55 '§ 310 Jurisdiction and arbitration clauses':

The first paragraph lays down the main rule that the transport agreement may not contain provisions which restrict the plaintiff's right to bring an action in a court of his choice for any of the places listed in letters a to d. It is particularly important that lawsuits can be brought at the place where the transport begins (place of loading).

There is no discrepancy between the Merchant Shipping Act, ss 310 and 252. Section 310 is a special provision in relation to s 252. There are no problems in relation to the CMR Act. If the damage occurs during road transport, the CMR Act applies. There is also a venue in Denmark pursuant to s 310(1)(ii) of the Merchant Shipping Act ('the place where the contract was made, provided that the defendant has there a place of business, branch or agency through which the contract was made), as the bill of lading was issued on 15 October 2003 in Copenhagen, where Hyundai according to the bill of lading has or had an agency. This is supported by the Merchant Shipping Act, section 252(2)(iv), which refers to the case where the 'transport document is issued in a State Party' to the Hague-Visby Rules.

Hyundai argued there were no rules on multimodal transport in Danish legislation. The framework for the application of the rules in Part 13 of the Merchant Shipping Act is s 252, which concerns agreements on 'maritime transport'. Multimodal transport, where the transport agreement covers more than maritime transport, are not covered by these special rules on maritime transport. Road transport (pre-transport) from Århus to Bremerhaven was regulated by the CMR Act, which is mandatory. It must therefore be obvious that transport cannot (also) be regulated by the Merchant Shipping Act, which is also mandatory. This would lead to a number of unfortunate issues with unresolved conflicts rules. There are no special considerations that argue in favour of extending the scope of the relevant rules in the Merchant Shipping Act.

Nowhere in the Merchant Shipping Act does it appear that s 252 must be understood as meaning that the Korean jurisdiction clause should be invalid. It is possible that s 310 of the Merchant Shipping Act specifies another area of application, but s 310 does not override s 252. Preliminary works cannot extend the scope of application of a law. It is crucial that the jurisdiction rules of the Merchant Shipping Act do not apply prescriptively when the port of loading or discharge is not in Denmark, and the Korean jurisdiction clause is therefore valid.

Held: The Maritime and Commercial High Court has jurisdiction to hear the case.

According to the Merchant Shipping Act's jurisdiction rule in s 310, a plaintiff may, at its own choice, bring an action in one of the places that appear in s 310(1)(i)-(iv) of the Merchant Shipping Act, and any prior agreement which may restrict the plaintiff's right is invalid.

Section 310 of the Merchant Shipping Act was introduced in 1994. The preparatory works for the provision state that the Maritime Law Committee, with the wording of the provision, wished to 'ensure the plaintiff's right to jurisdiction in the Nordic countries in cases where there are through bills of lading or combined transport documents concerning transport to and from the Nordic countries', provided that there is a single transport agreement. It also explicitly stated that in the event of transhipment in a port outside the Nordic region, a case may be brought in the Nordic region, regardless of whether the first stage of the transport takes place by ship or other means of transport.

The Court finds that this understanding is in full accordance with the wording of s 310(i)(iii). The wording of s 252 does not lead to a different result in this case, as Århus must be considered 'the port of loading as provided in the contract of carriage by sea', and jurisdiction is thus rightly established in Denmark.