The container leaves the discharge port through the customs broker, is trucked to the warehouse, sits for a week, and is opened to reveal wet and crushed cargo. A surveyor is called, a report is drafted, the file reaches a lawyer. The first question asked is not the quantum; it is “was written notice given to the carrier within three days of delivery?” A substantial share of marine cargo claims in Turkey are lost in those three days.

This article sets out the notice regime in sea carriage, the consequences of taking delivery without reservation, the distinction between a presumption and a limitation period, and how the burden of proof shifts. It concerns the carriage of goods by sea only; road, air and CMR regimes are outside its scope.

Contents

1. Two different reservations: Article 1239 at loading, Article 1185 at discharge
2. The full framework of Article 1185
3. Table of periods
4. Presumption or limitation period?
5. If no notice is given: the double presumption in Article 1185/4
6. The burden of proof and judicial practice
7. Who must the notice be given to?
8. Form and content of the notice
9. When no notice is required: joint survey and Article 1184
10. Can the regime be contracted out of?
11. Do not confuse the notice period with the one-year time bar
12. How the three days are lost in practice
13. Hour-by-hour roadmap
14. Joint reports, signing authority and evidence
15. Strategy by party
16. Eight common mistakes
17. Conclusion
18. Frequently asked questions
19. Sources and caveat

1. Two Different Reservations: Article 1239 at Loading, Article 1185 at Discharge

In sea carriage the word “reservation” points to two distinct institutions, and confusing them is the most common conceptual error in these files:

This article is about the second. We address the loading-end regime in our articles on contracts of affreightment and the evidentiary force of the bill of lading.

2. The Full Framework of Article 1185

The provision is taken from Article 19 of the 1978 Hamburg Rules. The legislative reasoning records that, for the carrier’s liability for delayed delivery — a matter not regulated in the former Code — a sixty-day notice period was introduced in line with Hamburg Rules Article 19(5), and that, unlike loss and damage, the carrier is expressly stated not to be liable for delay damages that are not notified in time.

3. Table of Periods

“Consecutively” matters. Weekends and public holidays falling inside the period count towards it; they are not deducted and do not extend it. The three-day period is therefore very short in practice: by the time the container has been pulled from the discharge port and trucked to a warehouse, it is often gone. When in doubt, send the notice without waiting for the last day.

4. Presumption or Limitation Period?

This is the defence most often built wrongly. Carriers’ counsel frequently plead “no notice was given in time, the claim must be dismissed” as a limitation objection. For loss and damage in sea carriage that plea is misconceived.

The statutory text itself draws the line: the closing sentence of Article 1185/4 provides that “proof to the contrary of these presumptions is admissible.” A limitation period admits of no such debate. By contrast Article 1185/5 states directly that no compensation is payable for delay damages not notified in time.

The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 43rd Civil Chamber, in its decision of 18.12.2025 (file 2022/941, judgment 2025/1935), set out the structure of the provision in these terms and confirmed that, where loss or damage has been neither notified nor established, the carrier is taken to have delivered the goods as stated in the sea carriage document and any loss is taken to arise from a cause for which the carrier is not responsible — while proof to the contrary remains admissible.

5. If No Notice Is Given: The Double Presumption

The fourth paragraph is heavier than its counterparts in other transport regimes, because it raises two presumptions rather than one:

1. Sound delivery: the carrier is taken to have delivered the goods as stated in the sea carriage document.
2. Non-liability: even if loss or damage is later established, it is taken to have arisen from a cause for which the carrier is not responsible.

The second is far more destructive. Establishing the damage by survey report is not enough; cargo interests must also prove that the damage arose from a cause for which the carrier is responsible. Without notice, the claimant faces a two-layer burden: that the damage occurred during the voyage while the goods were in the carrier’s control, and that it is attributable to a cause engaging the carrier’s liability.

The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber, in its decision of 09.03.2023 (file 2020/569, judgment 2023/386), stated this structure expressly: under Article 1185/1 apparent damage must be notified in writing at the latest at delivery and non-apparent damage within three days of delivery; where no notice, or no timely notice, is given, Article 1185/4 permits the conclusion that the carrier delivered the goods as stated in the bill of lading and that any loss or damage arose from a cause for which the carrier is not responsible.

6. The Burden of Proof and Judicial Practice

The practical consequence is severe. In its decision of 18.12.2025 the 43rd Civil Chamber held that there was no error in treating the goods as delivered undamaged where damage attributable to the carriage had not been established and notified in time, and in dismissing the claim because the claimant could not prove that the goods had been damaged by a cause for which the carrier was responsible.

7. Who Must the Notice Be Given To?

Article 1185/6 is one of the most useful provisions of the maritime regime and largely settles the question of the proper addressee. Notice may validly be given to:

• the carrier (the contractual carrier who issued the bill);
• the actual carrier — where it delivered the goods, notice to it takes effect as notice to the carrier, and vice versa;
• the master or the officer in charge;
• any person acting on behalf and for account of the carrier or actual carrier — in practice, the agent.

This answers the recurring question: “I notified the agent but not the carrier — have I lost the period?” To the extent the agent acts on behalf of the carrier, the notice is valid. By contrast, notice to the port operator, the terminal, the customs broker or your own haulier is as a rule insufficient; those parties do not act for the carrier.

8. Form and Content of the Notice

The statute requires the notice to be in writing and to state in general terms what the loss or damage consists of. The standard is reasonable: identifying the item, the nature and the approximate extent of the damage is enough; neither the exact figure nor the precise cause need be stated.

Always attach an invitation to joint survey. Two reasons: an inspection carried out with the other side present carries greater evidential weight, and it triggers the mutual obligation under Article 1185/3 discussed below.

9. When No Notice Is Required: Joint Survey and Article 1184

Article 1185/2 opens an important door: where the goods have been inspected with the participation of the parties by the court, a competent authority or experts officially appointed for the purpose, no separate notice is required. In practice this means obtaining a court-ordered preservation of evidence at the discharge port, or an inspection through officially appointed experts.

Article 1185/3 imposes a mutual obligation: where actual or apprehended loss or damage is in question, the carrier and the consignee must give each other every reasonable facility for inspecting the goods and determining the number of packages. A carrier that ignores an invitation to joint survey can be shown to have breached that obligation.

Article 1184 adds a practical advantage on costs: where the consignee applies for an inspection and loss or damage for which the carrier must pay compensation is ultimately established, the costs of the inspection fall on the carrier. Cargo interests who avoid commissioning a survey because of its cost are usually unaware of this.

10. Can the Regime Be Contracted Out Of?

It is sometimes argued, on the strength of a clause on the reverse of the bill, that the duty of inspection and notification lies with the carrier or that the notice period has been extended. The Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber, rejected that approach in its decision of 31.10.2024 (file 2021/1555, judgment 2024/1536), holding that the contractual provision relied on was not of a nature to remove the notification duty under Article 1185 and that the article contains no provision placing the duty of inspection and notification on the carrier; the ground of appeal was therefore rejected.

This is consistent with the wider framework: terms increasing the carrier’s statutory liability are valid, while terms reducing or excluding it are void. The statutory allocation of the inspection and notification burden to cargo interests is not treated as transferred to the carrier by contract.

11. Do Not Confuse the Notice Period with the One-Year Time Bar

Two independent calendars run in every marine cargo file:

• The notice calendar (Art. 1185): delivery / three days / sixty days. It determines the presumption and the burden of proof.
• The suit calendar (Art. 1188): one year from delivery or the date delivery should have been made, plus a ninety-day recourse window from payment or service of the claim. This is a true extinguishing period and, under Article 1188/4, may only be extended by agreement made after the cause of action has arisen.

Giving notice in time does not suspend the one-year period, and missing the notice does not shorten it. Both must be diaried separately. Where negotiations drag on, obtaining a written time extension from the P&I club is the standard way of protecting the suit period.

12. How the Three Days Are Lost in Practice

In container trades the loss of the period is almost a stock scenario: the box is cleared through the customs broker, trucked to the factory or warehouse, held for two or three days because of workload, then opened and found damaged. At that moment the three-day period under Article 1185/1 has usually expired, because it runs not from the date the container is opened but from the date of delivery of the goods to the consignee.

• Open the box at the port or immediately on delivery. At minimum open the doors and photograph the first tier; water ingress, shifting and toppling usually show there.
• Record the seal condition. A mismatched or broken seal strengthens the notice and is later used to rebut the presumption.
• Send a protective notice when in doubt. Even where the extent is unclear, notice of “apprehended loss or damage” can be given — Article 1185/3 itself speaks of actual or apprehended damage.

13. Hour-by-Hour Roadmap

14. Joint Reports, Signing Authority and Evidence

A damage report drawn up at delivery is the strongest document satisfying the notice requirement — but who signed it is decisive. In sea carriage Article 1185/6 draws the circle of addressees widely (master, officer in charge, agent, actual carrier); by contrast port operator staff, terminal operators and customs brokers do not act for the carrier, so a report bearing only their signatures may not count as notice to the carrier.

What the report should contain: date and time; bill of lading and container numbers; seal number and condition; a description of the damage; the full name and capacity of each signatory and the company for which they sign. If the signatory does not accept that they act for the carrier, record that too and send the notice separately in writing.

• Both faces of the bill of lading; clean statements or reservations at loading,
• Equipment Interchange Receipts (EIR) — they show external container damage and when it occurred,
• Terminal and port handling records, including any drop or impact reports,
• A survey report addressing the mechanics and causation of the damage; a quantum-only report will not rebut the presumption,
• Deck log, stowage plan, weather and routing records, heavy weather report,
• Loading photographs and packing list.

15. Strategy by Party

Cargo interests and consignees

The notice comes first; quantum is calculated later. If the period has been missed, the file is not over: proof to the contrary of the Article 1185/4 presumptions is admissible. The strategy is then to build a chain of evidence showing that the damage occurred in the carrier’s period of control and from a cause engaging its liability: a clean bill, EIR records, seal condition, external damage to the container, the deck log and a survey report that addresses causation.

Carriers and P&I clubs

The defence should be framed as a presumption plea, not a limitation plea: “no notice having been given in time, the presumptions of sound delivery and non-liability under Article 1185/4 have arisen, and the claimant has not rebutted them.” Whether the notice reached a proper addressee and whether it stated “in general terms” what the damage consists of should also be tested. For delay claims, the sixty-day extinguishing period is pleaded directly.

Underwriters and subrogees

The first thing to check in a recourse file is whether the assured gave notice in time. If it did not, the subrogated action is taken over together with the evidential burden the assured incurred. The ninety-day recourse window under Article 1188/3 must be diaried independently of the one-year period.

16. Eight Common Mistakes

1. Counting the three days from when the container was opened. The period runs from delivery of the goods to the consignee.
2. Ignoring the word “consecutively”. Weekends and public holidays count towards the period.
3. Relying on oral notice. The statute requires writing.
4. Notifying the wrong party. Port operators, terminals and customs brokers do not act for the carrier; agents do.
5. Describing nothing in the notice. It must state in general terms what the damage consists of.
6. Forgetting the delay notice. A damage notice is not a delay notice; the sixty-day period extinguishes the right.
7. Feeling safe on the one-year period because notice was given. The two calendars are independent.
8. Pleading limitation on the carrier’s side. For damage the correct plea is the presumption; the wrong framing weakens the defence.

17. Conclusion

• In sea carriage, notice is given at delivery for apparent damage and within three consecutive days for concealed damage, in writing.
• Missing the period does not extinguish the claim; but the double presumption in Article 1185/4 applies and cargo interests must prove both the damage and the cause engaging the carrier’s liability. The statute expressly admits proof to the contrary.
• Delay is different: no compensation is payable for delay damages not notified within sixty days. That is a true extinguishing period.
• Notice may be given to the carrier, the actual carrier, the master, the officer in charge or any person acting on the carrier’s behalf (Art. 1185/6).
• An inspection carried out with the parties’ participation by the court, a competent authority or officially appointed experts removes the need for notice (Art. 1185/2); its costs fall on the carrier where liability is ultimately established (Art. 1184).
• The regime cannot be transferred to the carrier by contract; bill of lading clauses to that effect do not displace Article 1185.

18. Frequently Asked Questions

What is the notice period for cargo damage in sea carriage?

Where the damage is apparent, at the latest at the time of delivery to the consignee; where it is not apparent, within three days calculated consecutively from delivery (Article 1185/1).

Do weekends count within the three days?

Yes. The statute speaks of “three days calculated consecutively”; weekends and public holidays falling inside the period are not deducted.

If I miss the notice, is my claim lost?

No. For loss and damage the notice period is not an extinguishing period. But two presumptions arise in the carrier’s favour under Article 1185/4 and the burden shifts to you. The statute expressly provides that proof to the contrary is admissible.

Which presumptions arise?

Two: that the carrier delivered the goods as stated in the sea carriage document, and that any damage established arose from a cause for which the carrier is not responsible.

What is the period for delay damages?

Sixty consecutive days from delivery. No compensation is payable for delay damages not notified in time (Article 1185/5) — unlike damage, this is a genuine loss of right.

Is notice to the agent sufficient?

To the extent the agent acts on behalf and for account of the carrier it falls within Article 1185/6 and the notice is valid. The safer course is still to send the same text to the carrier and any actual carrier.

Is notice to the master valid?

Yes. Under Article 1185/6, notice to any person acting on behalf and for account of the carrier or actual carrier — including the master and the officer in charge — is deemed given to the carrier or actual carrier.

Must the notice state the exact amount of the damage?

No. The statute requires only that the notice state in general terms what the loss or damage consists of. The quantum can be fixed later by survey.

If a joint survey was held, is notice still needed?

Where the inspection was carried out with the parties’ participation by the court, a competent authority or experts officially appointed for the purpose, no notice is required under Article 1185/2. An inspection by a private survey firm may not fall within that category, so sending the notice as well is the safer course.

Who pays for the survey?

Under Article 1184, where the consignee applies for an inspection and loss or damage for which the carrier must pay compensation is ultimately established, the costs of the inspection fall on the carrier.

What if the bill of lading says something different about notice?

Contractual clauses do not remove the notification duty under Article 1185. In its decision of 31.10.2024 the Istanbul RCA 14th Civil Chamber held that the clause relied on was not of a nature to remove that duty and that the article places no inspection or notification burden on the carrier.

I gave notice in time — how long do I have to sue?

One year from delivery or the date delivery should have been made (Article 1188). Timely notice does not extend it. For recourse, a ninety-day window runs from payment or service of the claim.

19. Sources and Caveat

• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Articles 1178, 1182, 1184, 1185, 1188, 1191, 1239 — official text at mevzuat.gov.tr
• Legislative reasoning to Article 1185 (source: Hamburg Rules 1978, Article 19; sixty-day delay notice)
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber, 09.03.2023, file 2020/569, judgment 2023/386
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 43rd Civil Chamber, 18.12.2025, file 2022/941, judgment 2025/1935
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal, 14th Civil Chamber, 31.10.2024, file 2021/1555, judgment 2024/1536

Related reading

• Contracts of affreightment and the carrier’s liability
• Who is liable for cargo damaged during loading and discharge?
• Arrest of ships: conditions and framework
• All maritime law articles