Sherman & Anor v Reader Offers Ltd [2023] EWHC 524 (KB) (10 March 2023)

Sherman & Anor v Reader Offers Ltd [2023] EWHC 524 (KB) (10 March 2023)

The High Court found that the County Court judge erred in law in his interpretation of Regulation 9, holding that the detailed itinerary was a contractual term as of 22 January 2018. However, the contract also incorporated standard terms allowing for changes to the itinerary. The changes made before departure did not amount to a significant alteration of an essential term under Regulation 12, so the right to withdraw without penalty did not arise. After departure, a significant proportion of services was not provided, but the defendant was not liable for compensation because the failure was due to unusual and unforeseeable ice conditions beyond their control, engaging the Regulation...

Citation
[2023] EWHC 524 (KB)
Parties
Claimant & Appellant: Mrs Rosemary Sherman; Claimant & Appellant: Mr Nicholas Sherman; Defendant & Respondent: Reader Offers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Package Travel Regulations, Contractual Terms, Consumer Protection, Force Majeure, Compensation for Non Performance
Consumer Law Contract Law Travel Law Package Travel Regulations Contractual Terms Consumer Protection Force Majeure Compensation for Non Performance

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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Rosemary Sherman

Claimant & Appellant

Mr Nicholas Sherman

Claimant & Appellant

Reader Offers Limited

Defendant & Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detailed itinerary was an essential contractual term under the Package Travel Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether pre-departure changes constituted a significant alteration to an essential term requiring consumer remedies under Regulation 12
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was liable for compensation under Regulation 14 for failure to provide a significant proportion of contracted services

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the County Court judge erred in law in his interpretation of Regulation 9, holding that the detailed itinerary was a contractual term as of 22 January 2018. However, the contract also incorporated standard terms allowing for changes to the itinerary. The changes made before departure did not amount to a significant alteration of an essential term under Regulation 12, so the right to withdraw without penalty did not arise. After departure, a significant proportion of services was not provided, but the defendant was not liable for compensation because the failure was due to unusual and unforeseeable ice conditions beyond their control, engaging the Regulation...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Defendant
  • Claimants' claims dismissed