Disappointed Polar Cruise Couple Triumph in Breach of Contract Claim

18th May 2023 By

Almost everyone has returned from a holiday feeling deeply disappointed, but a right to compensation by no means necessarily follows. However, in one case, a couple whose £20,000 polar cruise fell sadly short of their expectations successfully took a stand on their legal rights.

The adventurous couple booked a cruise that should have taken them through the celebrated Northwest Passage. However, the route through the Canadian polar waterways, connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, proved impassable as sea ice closed in. A different route was taken, but the couple were bitterly disappointed to visit none of the places, and see none of the things, that they had most wanted to experience.

Seeking their money back, they launched proceedings against the travel firm through which they had booked the cruise. Following a nine-day trial, however, a judge rejected their claim and ordered them to pay the firm’s £60,000 legal costs. Whilst accepting that a significant proportion of the services for which the couple had contracted had not been provided, he found that the firm was not at fault. The change of route was due to unusual and unforeseeable circumstances beyond the firm’s control.

Allowing the couple’s appeal against that outcome, the High Court found that the judge erred in law in his contractual analysis and his reading of the relevant part of the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992. The Court found, crucially, that the detailed travel itinerary that the couple were given prior to the cruise formed a term of their contract with the firm.

In upholding the couple’s breach of contract claim, the Court emphasised that it was not disturbing the judge’s factual findings. There was no criticism of the attempts made by the firm and its agents to deliver the cruise in difficult circumstances. The question of what relief should be granted to the couple in the light of the Court’s ruling would be considered at a further hearing, if not agreed.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...