A container is pulled from the port, goes to your warehouse, is opened a week later, and inside, wet, crushed cargo is found. An expert is called, a report is prepared, and the file goes to the lawyer. The first question asked is not the amount of the damage; it is: “Was written notice given to the carrier within three days after delivery?” In practice, a significant portion of marine cargo damage claims are lost within these three days.

In this article, we examine the regime of damage notification in sea carriage, the consequences of not making a reservation, the distinction between presumption and preclusive period, and how the burden of proof shifts. The article is solely related to carriage of goods by sea; road, air, and CMR regimes are outside its scope.

Contents

1. Two different reservations: Article 1239 at the loading end, Article 1185 at the discharging end
2. Full scope of Article 1185 of the Turkish Commercial Code
3. Table of periods: apparent damage, hidden damage, delay
4. Legal nature of the notification period: presumption or preclusive period?
5. If no notification is made: the double presumption of Article 1185/4
6. Burden of proof balance and judicial practice
7. Who is notified? Captain, ship’s officer, actual carrier
8. Form and content of the notification
9. Case where notification is not required: joint survey and Article 1184 of the Turkish Commercial Code
10. Can it be overridden by contract?
11. Do not confuse the notification period with the one-year preclusive period
12. How is the three-day period missed in practice?
13. Hour-by-hour roadmap
14. Report, signing authority, and evidence
15. Strategy according to the parties
16. Eight most common mistakes made in practice
17. Conclusion
18. Frequently asked questions
19. Resources and disclaimer

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

In maritime transport, the word “reservation” refers to two distinct institutions, and their confusion is the most common conceptual error in the file:

The subject of this article is the latter. We have discussed the reservation regime at the loading end in our articles on freight contracts and the evidentiary power of the bill of lading.

2. Full Framework of TCC art. 1185 Provision

This provision is derived from Article 19 of the 1978 Hamburg Rules. The explanatory memorandum for the article states that, with regard to liability for late delivery, which was not regulated in the repealed Law No. 6762, a sixty-day notification period is granted under Article 19/5 of the Hamburg Rules, and it is explicitly stated that, unlike loss or damage, the carrier shall not be liable for damages arising from delay not notified in a timely manner.

3. Table of Time Limits

The term “uninterrupted” is critical. Weekends and public holidays falling within the period are included; these days are not deducted from the period and do not extend it. The three-day period is therefore very short in practice: when the container is pulled from the discharge port and taken to the warehouse, the period often expires en route. In case of doubt, notification should be sent without waiting until the last day.

4. Legal Nature of the Notification Period: Presumption or Forfeiture Period?

This is the most frequently wrongly established defense in practice. Carrier’s attorneys frequently raise an objection of forfeiture period in the form of “notification was not made within the period, the lawsuit should be dismissed”. Regarding loss and damage in maritime transport, this objection is incorrect.

The text of the law itself already establishes this distinction: the last sentence of Art. 1185/4 states “provided that, the contrary of these presumptions can be proven”. There is no discussion of “proving the contrary” within a preclusive period. In contrast, Art. 1185/5, regarding delay, directly provides for a loss of right by stating “no compensation is paid for delay damages for which no timely notification has been made”.

In the decision of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, 43rd Civil Chamber, dated 18.12.2025, with file no. E. 2022/941 and decision no. K. 2025/1935, the structure of the judgment was conveyed as follows; if the loss or damage of the goods has not been reported and ascertained, it will be presumed that the carrier delivered the goods as stated in the bill of lading for sea carriage and that the damage resulted from a cause for which the carrier is not responsible, however, it has been stated that the contrary of this presumption can be proven.

5. If No Notice is Given: The Double Presumption of Art. 1185/4

The fourth paragraph of the provision is more stringent than its counterparts in the road transport regime; because it establishes not one, but two presumptions:

1. Presumption of sound delivery: it is presumed that the carrier delivered the goods at sea as stated in the bill of lading.
2. Presumption of non-liability: even if a loss or damage to the goods is determined subsequently, it is presumed that this damage resulted from a cause for which the carrier is not liable.

The second presumption is much more detrimental. Even if the cargo interest proves the existence of damage with a survey report, this is not sufficient; they must also prove that the damage arose from a cause for which the carrier is liable. In other words, if no notification is made, the cargo interest faces a two-layered burden of proof: that the damage occurred during the transport process, while under the carrier’s control, and that it can be attributed to a cause giving rise to the carrier’s liability.

This structure was clearly expressed in the decision dated 09.03.2023, numbered E. 2020/569, K. 2023/386, of the 14th Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice: Pursuant to Article 1185/1 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC), damage apparent externally must be notified to the carrier in writing at the latest at the time of delivery, and damage not apparent externally must be notified within three days from delivery; if no damage notification is made to the carrier, either within the time limit or at all, pursuant to Article 1185/4, it can be presumed that the carrier delivered the goods as stated in the bill of lading, and if there is any damage or loss to the goods, that this damage resulted from a cause for which the carrier is not liable.

6. Balance of Burden of Proof and Judicial Practice

The result of this balance is harsh in practice. In the decision dated 18.12.2025 of the 43rd Civil Chamber of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, it was stated that there was no error in accepting that the goods were delivered to the consignee without damage, given the non-notification of a damage identified as arising from carriage within the period, and in the decision to dismiss the case because the plaintiff could not prove that the goods were damaged due to a reason for which the carrier was responsible.

7. Who Should Be Notified?

One of the most useful provisions of the maritime regime is Article 1185/6, which largely resolves the debate regarding the recipient. Notification can be validly made to the following persons:

• To the Carrier (contractual carrier, issuer of the bill of lading),
• To the Actual Carrier — if the goods are delivered by the actual carrier, any notification made to them shall be deemed to have been made to the carrier, and any notification made to the carrier shall be deemed to have been made to the actual carrier,
• To the Master or the responsible ship’s officer,
• To any person acting on behalf of and for the account of the carrier or the actual carrier — in practice, the agent falls within this scope.

This provision answers the question, “I notified the agent of the damage, but not the carrier; have I missed my deadline?”: the notification is valid to the extent that the agent acts on behalf of and for the account of the carrier. Conversely, notification made to the port operator, terminal, customs broker, or your own forwarder is generally not sufficient; these persons do not act on behalf of the carrier.

8. Form and Content of Notification

The law requires the notification to be in writing. The notice must state in general terms what the loss or damage consists of. The criterion here is reasonable: it is sufficient to clearly indicate the item, nature, and approximate extent of the damage; it is not necessary to state the exact amount or the precise cause.

Examples of weak and strong notifications:

An invitation to a joint survey should always be attached to the notification. There are two reasons for this: firstly, a determination made with the participation of the other party increases its evidentiary value; secondly, it triggers the obligation under Article 1185/3, as explained below.

9. Circumstance Where Notification Is Not Required: Joint Survey and Article 1184 of the TCC

Article 1185/2 of the TCC opens an important door: if the inspection of the goods is carried out by the court or competent authority with the participation of the parties, or by experts officially appointed for this purpose, no further notification is required. In practice, this means obtaining evidence through the court at the port of discharge or conducting an inspection by an officially appointed expert.

Article 1185/3, on the other hand, imposes a mutual obligation on the parties: in case of actual or potential loss or damage, the carrier and the consignee are obligated to provide each other with all reasonable facilities for the inspection of the goods and the determination of the number of packages. The carrier’s failure to respond to a joint survey request may be reflected in the file as a breach of this obligation.

In addition, Article 1184 of the TCC provides a practical advantage regarding inspection costs: if the consignee applies for an inspection and a loss or damage is subsequently determined for which the carrier must pay compensation, the inspection costs shall be borne by the carrier. Cargo interests who avoid having a survey carried out due to the cost often do not know this provision.

10. Can it be Overruled by Contract?

In practice, it is sometimes argued, based on a record on the back of the bill of lading, that the obligation of inspection and notification belongs to the carrier or that the notification period has been extended. This approach was not accepted in the decision of the Istanbul Regional Court of Justice, 14th Civil Chamber, dated 31.10.2024, numbered E. 2021/1555, K. 2024/1536; it was stated that the contractual arrangement in question did not have the nature of eliminating the notification obligation regulated in Article 1185 of the Turkish Commercial Code and that there was no provision in the article stating that the obligation of inspection and notification was imposed on the carrier, thus the ground for appeal was not found appropriate.

It should be noted that this is also consistent with the general framework: while provisions increasing the carrier’s legal liability are considered valid, provisions reducing or eliminating it are invalid. The legal regulation stating that the burden of inspection and notification lies with the party concerned with the cargo is not considered to have been transferred to the carrier by contract.

11. Do Not Confuse the Notification Period with the One-Year Forfeiture Period

In a maritime cargo damage file, there are two independent timelines:

• Notification timeline (Art. 1185): moment of delivery / three days / sixty days. It determines the presumption and the burden of proof.
• Litigation timeline (Art. 1188): one year from the date of delivery or the date it should have been delivered; an additional ninety-day period from the date of payment in recourse or the receipt of the lawsuit petition. This is the true forfeiture period and, in accordance with TTK Art. 1188/4, can only be extended by agreement made after the cause of action arises.

Making the notification within the period does not stop the one-year limitation period; similarly, missing the notification does not shorten the one-year period. The two should be followed separately. In prolonged negotiations, obtaining a written time extension from the P&I club is the standard way to protect the lawsuit period.

12. How is the Three-Day Period Missed in Practice?

In container transport, missing the deadline is an almost typical scenario and works as follows: the container is picked up from the discharge port via a customs consultant, loaded onto a truck, and taken to a factory or warehouse. Due to workload, it is kept waiting for two to three days, then opened, and damage is observed. At this point, the three-day period in Article 1185/1 has often expired, because the period begins to run not from the date the container is opened, but from the date of delivery of the goods to the consignee.

There are three practical precautions to manage this risk:

• Open the container at the port or as soon as you receive it. At least open the door and photograph the first row; wetting, shifting, and toppling are usually observed here.
• Document the seal status. If the seal number does not match or the seal is broken, this both strengthens the notification text and is used to break the presumption.
• Send a protective notification in case of doubt. Even if the extent of the damage is not clear, a “possible loss/damage” notification can be made; Article 1185/3 already refers to “actual or potential” damage.

13. Hour-by-Hour Roadmap

14. Report, Signature Authority, and Evidence

The damage assessment report prepared at the time of delivery is the strongest document satisfying the notification requirement; however, who signed the report is crucial. In maritime transport, m. 1185/6 broadens the circle of recipients (captain, responsible ship’s officer, agent, actual carrier); conversely, since port management personnel, terminal operators, or customs consultants do not act on behalf of the carrier, a report bearing only their signature may not be considered a notification made to the carrier.

What should be included in the report: date and time, bill of lading and container number, seal number and status, description of the damage, name-surname and title information of the signatories, and on behalf of which company they signed. If the signatory does not accept acting on behalf of the carrier, this fact should also be recorded in the report, and the notification should be sent separately in writing.

Other evidence to be collected to rebut the presumption:

• Front and back of the bill of lading; clean record or reservation before loading,
• EIR (equipment interchange receipt) records — showing the external damage to the container and its timing,
• Terminal and port handling records, drop/impact reports if any,
• Survey report — must discuss the mechanics and causality of the damage; a report that only determines the value does not rebut the presumption,
• Ship’s log, stowage plan, weather and route records, heavy weather report,
• Loading photographs and packing list.

15. Strategy According to Parties

For the Cargo Interest and Consignee

The priority is notification; the amount of damage is calculated later. If the deadline has passed, the file is not closed: the presumptions of m. 1185/4 can be rebutted. In this case, the strategy is to establish a chain of evidence demonstrating that the damage occurred during the carrier’s period of control and due to a cause for which the carrier is responsible: clean bill of lading, EIR records, seal status, external damage to the container, ship’s log, and causality assessment in the survey report.

For the Carrier and P&I Club

The defense should be established not as an objection to a preclusive period, but as an objection to a presumption: “since notice was not given within the period, presumptions of sound delivery and non-liability arose pursuant to Article 1185/4; the plaintiff could not prove the contrary of these presumptions.” Furthermore, it should be discussed whether the recipient and content of the notice meet the legal criteria, and whether “what it consists of in general” is specified. For delay claims, a sixty-day preclusive period is directly asserted.

For the insurer and successor

The first thing to check in a subrogation file is whether the insured made the notification on time. If there is no notification, the lawsuit to be filed in the capacity of successor is taken over with the burden of proof that the insured fell into. Furthermore, the ninety-day subrogation window in Article 1188/3 must be followed independently of the one-year period.

16. Eight Most Common Mistakes in Practice

1. Counting three days from the date the container was opened. The period runs from the date of delivery of the goods to the consignee.
2. Omitting the phrase “uninterrupted.” Weekends and public holidays do not stop the period.
3. Relying on verbal notification. The law requires written notification.
4. Notifying the wrong recipient. The port authority, terminal, or customs broker does not act on behalf of the carrier; the agent does.
5. Not describing the damage at all in the notification. “What it consists of in general” should be specified.
6. Forgetting the delay notification. Damage notification does not substitute for delay notification; the sixty-day period leads to an actual loss of rights.
7. To take the one-year period for granted simply because a notice was given. The two calendars are independent.
8. To raise an objection of time-bar (preclusion period) on the carrier’s side. The correct objection in case of damage is a presumption objection; a wrong premise weakens the defense.

17. Conclusion

• Damage notice in maritime transport is made in writing; for apparent damage, at the time of delivery, and for non-apparent (hidden) damage, within three consecutive days.
• If the deadline is missed, the right to sue is not forfeited; however, the double presumption of Article 1185/4 comes into play, and the cargo interest is obliged to prove both the damage and the cause giving rise to the carrier’s liability. The law explicitly states that the presumption can be rebutted.
• Delay is different: Compensation is not paid for delay damages not notified within sixty days. This is a genuine time-bar (preclusion period).
• Notification can be made to the carrier, the actual carrier, the master, the responsible ship’s officer, or a person acting on behalf and for the account of the carrier (Art. 1185/6).
• An inspection carried out by the court, competent authority, or officially appointed experts with the participation of the parties eliminates the need for notification (Art. 1185/2); inspection costs shall be borne by the carrier if the carrier’s liability for compensation arises as a result (Art. 1184).
• The notification regime cannot be transferred to the carrier by contract; bill of lading clauses to this effect do not override Art. 1185.

18. Frequently Asked Questions

What is the notification period for damage in sea carriage?

If the damage is externally apparent, written notification must be made at the latest during the delivery of the goods to the consignee; if it is not externally apparent, it must be made within three consecutive days from the date of delivery (TCC Art. 1185/1).

Are weekends included in the three-day period?

Yes. The law states “three consecutive days”; weekends and public holidays do not interrupt the period.

If I do not give timely notice, will my case be dismissed?

No. The notification period for loss and damage is not a forfeiture period. However, pursuant to Art. 1185/4, two presumptions arise in favor of the carrier, and the burden of proof shifts to you. The law explicitly states that these presumptions can be rebutted.

What presumptions arise if no notification is made?

Two presumptions: that the carrier delivered the goods by sea as stated in the bill of lading, and that if damage to the goods is determined, this damage resulted from a cause for which the carrier is not responsible.

What is the period for delay damages?

Sixty consecutive days from the date of delivery. No compensation is paid for delay damages if notification is not made within the period (Turkish Commercial Code, Art. 1185/5). This is a real loss of right, unlike damage.

Is it sufficient to make the notification to the agent?

The agent falls within the scope of Article 1185/6 to the extent that they act in the name and on behalf of the carrier, and the notification is valid. Nevertheless, the safe way is to send the same text to the carrier and, if applicable, to the actual carrier.

Is a notification made to the captain valid?

Yes. Pursuant to Turkish Commercial Code Article 1185/6, a notification made to a person acting in the name and on behalf of the carrier or actual carrier, including the captain and the responsible ship’s officer, is deemed to have been made to the carrier or actual carrier.

Do I have to state the exact amount of the damage in the notice?

No. The law considers it sufficient for the notice to state in general what the loss or damage consists of. The amount can be clarified later with a survey.

Is a separate notice required if a joint survey has been conducted?

If the examination has been carried out with the participation of the parties by a court, competent authority, or experts officially appointed for this matter, no notification is required pursuant to Article 1185/2. Since a determination made by a private survey company may not be considered within this scope, it is safer to send the notice separately.

Who pays the survey costs?

Pursuant to Turkish Commercial Code Article 1184, if an application for examination is made and a loss or damage for which the carrier must pay compensation is determined as a result, the examination costs shall be borne by the carrier.

What if there is a different record regarding notice in the bill of lading?

Contractual records do not abolish the notification obligation in Article 1185 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC). In the decision dated 31.10.2024 of the 14th Civil Chamber of Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals, it was stated that the provision in the bill of lading was not of a nature to remove this obligation, and that there was no provision in the article stating that the burden of inspection and notification was imposed on the carrier.

I gave notice on time; how much time do I have for the lawsuit?

One year from the date of delivery or the date when it should have been delivered, in accordance with Article 1188 of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC). Giving notice on time does not extend this period. In recourse, an additional ninety-day period runs from the payment or the receipt of the lawsuit petition.

19. Sources and Warning

• Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102, Arts. 1178, 1182, 1184, 1185, 1188, 1191, 1239 — mevzuat.gov.tr official text
• Justification for TCC Art. 1185 (source: Hamburg Rules dated 1978 Art. 19; sixty-day delay notice)
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 14th Civil Chamber, 09.03.2023, E. 2020/569, K. 2023/386
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 43rd Civil Chamber, 18.12.2025, E. 2022/941, K. 2025/1935
• Istanbul Regional Court of Appeals 14th Civil Chamber, 31.10.2024, E. 2021/1555, K. 2024/1536

Our related articles

• Freight contracts and carrier’s liability
• Who is responsible for cargo damaged during loading and unloading?
• Arrest of ships: conditions and general framework
• All our articles on maritime commercial law