Mawdsley v Cosmosair Plc

A holiday brochure stating that a hotel had lifts in its main building represents that all levels in that building, including a restaurant naturally understood to be situated there, are directly accessible by lift. Where that representation is misleading, liability may arise under regulations governing package travel information, in contract and for negligent misrepresentation. Causation is established where the misrepresentation directly exposes the claimant to the particular risk which materialises. The breach is not merely an occasion for injury if there is no new intervening act and the claimant’s conduct is reasonable.

Mrs Sheila Mawdsley was injured while descending hotel stairs in Turkey during a package holiday supplied by Cosmosair Plc. The agreed damages were £17,500, and liability alone was disputed.

The county court found that the brochure’s statement, “Lifts (in main building)”, misrepresented access to the restaurant and that the misrepresentation caused the accident. It awarded damages under the Package Travel Regulations 1992, in contract and for negligent misrepresentation. Cosmosair appealed, challenging the interpretation of the brochure, the finding of suitability, reliance and causation.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order awarding Mrs Mawdsley £17,500 was upheld, with costs as agreed.
2. The statement “Lifts (in main building)” would naturally be understood as representing that all levels in the main building could be accessed directly by lift. The absence of any specific reference to the restaurant did not alter that interpretation, since a reader would naturally assume that the restaurant was in the main building.
3. The court rejected the further finding that the absence of lift access to the restaurant made the hotel unsuitable for parents with young children. Access involving stairs did not, in the circumstances, make the hotel unsuitable. The operative breach was therefore the misleading representation about lift access.
4. That representation constituted misleading information for the purposes of regulation 4 of the Package Travel Regulations 1992. Regulation 6 made the brochure particulars implied warranties in the contract. The finding that Mrs Mawdsley relied on the misrepresentation was unassailable on appeal.
5. Quinn v Birch Brothers (Builders) [1966] 2 QB 370 was distinguishable. In that case, the claimant’s independent and negligent choice to use an insecure trestle was a new intervening act. Here, Mrs Mawdsley’s reasonable decision to descend the stairs while carrying the pushchair did not break the chain of causation.
6. The misrepresentation related directly to the means of access to the restaurant and exposed Mrs Mawdsley to the very risk that materialised. There was therefore a sufficient causal link between the misrepresentation and her injury. No separate issue arose on foreseeability.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Cosmosair Plc appealed against the Manchester County Court order made by His Honour Judge Singer on 26 September 2001. The appeal was dismissed.