Hallmark Travel Consultants Ltd v Celtic Manor Hotel Ltd

Permission to appeal should be refused where the proposed appeal has no real chance of success. The Court of Appeal will not interfere with trial findings of fact without a proper basis, particularly where the issue was pre-eminently for the trial judge. An alleged contractual reservation requires consideration and sufficiently concluded terms; efforts to find customers do not, without more, constitute consideration for a supposed offer. Where a reservation is specific to a particular group and that group can no longer attend, the damages may be nil even if a contract and repudiatory breach are established.

Hallmark Travel Consultants Ltd applied for permission to appeal against the dismissal of its claim by His Honour Judge Moseley QC, sitting in the Chancery Division at Cardiff District Registry. Hallmark alleged that Celtic Manor Hotel Ltd had agreed to reserve hotel rooms for a South African group and had repudiated that agreement.

The proposed appeal challenged the finding that no contract had been concluded, the rejection of an alleged contractual option, the finding that the reservation was specific to the Dunlop South Africa group, and the refusal to reopen the trial to admit further evidence. The central question was whether the proposed appeal had a real chance of success.

1. Permission refused. Lord Justice Jonathan Parker dismissed the application because an appeal against Judge Moseley’s judgment would have no real chance of success. He adhered to his earlier refusal of permission on the papers. There was no arguable basis for challenging the trial judge’s findings of fact.
2. The trial judge was entitled to find that the Hotel’s offer to reserve the rooms was non-contractual and unsupported by consideration, and that no contract could arise before payment of the deposit. The attempt to treat Hallmark’s efforts to find customers as consideration for a contractual offer was untenable. On the findings of fact, the conclusion that no contract had been concluded was inevitable.
3. The finding that the reservation was specific to the Dunlop South Africa group was pre-eminently a factual issue for the trial judge. Once that group no longer intended to stay at the Hotel, there was no prospect of its occupying the rooms. That finding also meant that Hallmark’s claim for breach of any supposed contract could not succeed; even if there had been repudiatory breach, the measure of damages would have been nil.
4. There was no basis for interfering with the judge’s refusal to reopen the trial or admit further oral and documentary evidence after the draft judgment had been handed down. The uncalled solicitor’s evidence had made no difference to the judge’s reasoning, and its inclusion did not provide a ground of appeal.

The application was dismissed. There was no order for costs.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal was refused on the papers on 19 July 2001 and the renewed application was dismissed on 10 August 2001: [2001] EWCA Civ 1414. There was no order for costs.
• High Court, Chancery Division, Cardiff District Registry: His Honour Judge Moseley QC dismissed Hallmark’s contractual claim on 15 June 2001 and refused permission to appeal.