Bygrave v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1631 (05 November 2003)

Bygrave v Thomas Cook Tour Operations Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1631 (05 November 2003)

The trial judge's assessment of damages for severe ankle injury, future care, and travel expenses was justified based on evidence of ongoing disability and impact on claimant's life; the awards fell within appropriate ranges and were not manifestly excessive.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1631
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Julie Bygrave; Defendant/appellant: Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assessment of Damages, Package Holiday Liability, Future Care Costs, General Damages, Travel Expenses
Tort Personal Injury Assessment of Damages Package Holiday Liability Future Care Costs General Damages Travel Expenses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julie Bygrave

Claimant/respondent

Thomas Cook Tour Operations Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate categorisation and quantum of general damages for severe ankle injury
  2. 2 Entitlement to compensation for future care and assistance
  3. 3 Entitlement to compensation for future travel expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's assessment of damages for severe ankle injury, future care, and travel expenses was justified based on evidence of ongoing disability and impact on claimant's life; the awards fell within appropriate ranges and were not manifestly excessive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Awards for general damages (£19,000), future care (£19,230), and future travel expenses (£2,485) upheld
  • Costs in the appeal on an indemnity basis