TUI UK Ltd v Morgan

For package holidays performed abroad, the organiser’s contractual obligation to exercise reasonable skill and care is governed by English law. Local safety standards are an important signpost, but they are not necessarily conclusive. If local standards are breached, liability will almost inevitably follow; compliance does not necessarily discharge the English-law obligation. Where local standards are unclear or unavailable, the claimant may rely on other evidence, including international standards and evidence of practice elsewhere. The assessment is principally factual. An appellate court should be slow to interfere with properly directed findings of fact. Causation may be inferred where the evidence supports the conclusion that the relevant deficiency caused the accident.

The claimant was injured when she collided with an unlit wooden sunbed while returning to her hotel room during a package holiday in Mauritius. She claimed damages from the tour operator under the implied contractual term requiring services to be provided with reasonable skill and care, and under regulation 15 of the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992.

The County Court at Cardiff found the tour operator liable, subject to 20% contributory negligence. The tour operator appealed on the interpretation and use of an international lighting standard, the proof of local standards, causation and the structure of the first-instance judgment. The central issue was whether the judge had properly assessed the contractual standard applicable to lighting at the accident location.

1. Appeal dismissed. The first-instance judge had directed himself correctly and made findings open to him on the evidence.
2. The implied term under section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 required the organiser to provide the contracted services with reasonable skill and care, notwithstanding that performance was delegated to the hotel. The obligation was governed by English law, although performed abroad.
3. Local standards were a very important signpost in determining the content of the obligation. Their breach would almost inevitably establish breach of the English-law obligation, but compliance would not necessarily do so. The organiser’s obligation remained one of reasonable skill and care, and could be informed by international or English standards where local standards fell materially below them.
4. Where local standards were unclear, the claimant was not required to prove an uncertain or non-existent standard. Other evidence could establish the content of the duty. The judge was entitled to use the ISO emergency-lighting standard as a proxy or evidential benchmark, while recognising that it did not directly govern the accident site.
5. The interpretation of the ISO standard and the resulting assessment were principally factual matters. The judge was entitled to accept the claimant’s expert evidence and find that the lighting deficiency caused the accident. In the absence of a contrary case being advanced and proved, the court could proceed on the basis that the claimant had ordinary visual acuity.
6. The complaint about the structure of the first-instance judgment merely repeated the other grounds and disclosed no error of law. The appeal was dismissed.

• High Court (Chancery Division): Appeal from the order of His Honour Judge Jarman QC, sitting in the County Court at Cardiff, dated 23 June 2020. Appeal dismissed.
• County Court at Cardiff: Judgment for the claimant on liability, subject to approximately 20% contributory negligence.