Garwood v Silversea Cruises Ltd

A senior shipboard official who represents the commercial interests of a cruise operator may possess usual authority to resolve passenger accommodation complaints, including by promising compensation or credit. The authority depends on the practical functions and circumstances of the office, and need not be proved by an express representation to the passenger. A credit agreement may bind the operator even where its precise origin is disputed. If the passenger cannot reasonably use the credit after a reasonable period, its value may be recoverable in cash. On appeal, documentary evidence may justify revising a factual award where it conclusively establishes that part of the credit has already been used.

The claimant booked a cruise operated by the defendant and occupied adjoining suites with Lady Alliot. After she left the vessel, the defendant placed other passengers in her suite. The county court found that the purser had agreed to compensate the claimant and awarded £9,265.83 plus interest and costs.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the purser’s authority, the finding that an agreement had been made, and the failure to account for a later cruise. The Court of Appeal admitted a travel-agent computer printout as fresh evidence and considered whether the claimant had already used £4,000 of an £8,000 credit.

1. Fresh evidence. The Court admitted the purser’s statement and other evidence on the principles in Ladd v Marshall. The travel-agent computer printout was admitted although it should have been disclosed before trial. The purser’s statement was excluded because it could reasonably have been obtained before trial.

2. Purser’s authority. A cruise ship is a large floating commercial enterprise. The purser is the senior official on board representing the operator’s commercial interests and is equivalent, in practical terms, to a hotel manager. In the circumstances, a purser would ordinarily be expected to have authority to deal with accommodation problems and to promise compensation or credit for the use of accommodation paid for by another passenger. The finding of apparent or ostensible authority was therefore sustainable.

3. Binding credit and amount recoverable. The documentary evidence conclusively showed that £4,000 of the £8,000 cruise credit had been used to pay for the claimant’s later cruise. That evidence explained the claimant’s initial claim for £4,000 and did not necessarily destroy his general credibility. In any event, the correspondence created a binding agreement between the claimant and the defendant for £8,000 credit. The claimant was entitled to recover only the unused £4,000 balance. If credit could not be used after a reasonable period, it could be converted into cash.

4. Disposition. The appeal was allowed. The county court judgment was set aside and judgment was substituted for £4,000, with interest at 8 per cent from 1996, subject to the further determination of the interest date. The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant’s assessed costs of £3,333.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the defendant’s appeal from the Shoreditch County Court judgment dated 2 February 2000 and substituted judgment for £4,000 plus interest.
• Shoreditch County Court: awarded the claimant £9,265.83 plus interest and costs.