Codd v Thomsons Tour Operators Limited

In a foreign-accident claim, the claimant must prove negligence before liability can be imposed on a tour operator for the conduct of its supplier. English law governs the establishment of negligence, but a foreign hotel is not required to comply with British safety standards merely because English law applies. Compliance with local law may support an inference that reasonable maintenance and inspection systems existed. An appellate court will not interfere with factual findings where the trial judge was entitled to accept the evidence and reach the conclusions made.

A child injured when a hotel lift door closed on his finger brought a claim against the tour operator. The operator accepted responsibility if negligence by the hotel were established. The Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court dismissed the claim on liability and ordered costs. The claimant appealed, challenging the maintenance evidence, the trial judge’s conduct, and the absence of emergency instructions and equipment. The central issues were whether negligence had been proved and whether British safety standards applied to a lift situated in Majorca.

1. Appeal dismissed. The claimant had to establish negligence by the hotel management, either in maintaining the lift or in its safety procedures. The case did not justify imposing liability without proof of negligence.
2. English law governed the establishment of negligence, but that did not require a hotel in Majorca to comply with British safety standards. The court applied the approach identified in Wilson v Best Travel Limited [1999] 1 All ER 353.
3. The trial judge was entitled to find that the lift had been inspected and maintained in accordance with Spanish law. The accepted evidence that the lifts operated satisfactorily before and after the accident, together with the inspection records, justified that conclusion on the balance of probabilities. Imperfect documentary evidence did not require its wholesale rejection.
4. The absence of emergency alarms or instructions did not establish negligence where the judge found no applicable Spanish requirement for them. There was also no sufficient basis for concluding that material documents had been deliberately withheld, that the defence witness was necessarily dishonest, or that the trial had been conducted unfairly.
5. The claimant was ordered to pay £1,500 on account of costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): dismissed the appeal from the order made by His Honour Judge Roach.
• Torquay and Newton Abbot County Court: dismissed the claim on liability on 21 May 1999 and ordered the claimant to pay £3,000 costs.