Sherman & Anor. v Reader Officers Ltd

Sherman & Anor. v Reader Officers Ltd

The trial judge erred in law by failing to recognise the detailed itinerary as an essential contractual term and misapplying Regulation 9; ROL was in breach of contract for failing to notify the Shermans of significant pre-departure changes as required by Regulation 12; exclusion clauses did not apply as sea ice conditions were foreseeable and inherent to the risk of the cruise; the appeal is allowed and primary liability for breach of contract is established.

Parties
Claimant & Appellant: Mrs Rosemary Sherman; Claimant & Appellant: Mr Nicholas Sherman; Defendant & Respondent: Reader Offers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Package Travel Regulations, Contractual Terms, Exclusion Clauses, Remedies for Breach, Consumer Rights
Contract Law Consumer Protection Package Travel Regulations Contractual Terms Exclusion Clauses Remedies for Breach Consumer Rights

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 4 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 Regulation 9 and Schedule 2 of the Package Travel Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether pre-departure changes constituted a significant alteration to an essential term requiring notification and right to withdraw under Regulation 12
  3. 3 Whether the provider was liable for breach of contract and entitled to rely on exclusion clauses under Regulations 14 and 15

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in law by failing to recognise the detailed itinerary as an essential contractual term and misapplying Regulation 9; ROL was in breach of contract for failing to notify the Shermans of significant pre-departure changes as required by Regulation 12; exclusion clauses did not apply as sea ice conditions were foreseeable and inherent to the risk of the cruise; the appeal is allowed and primary liability for breach of contract is established.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Shermans' appeal is allowed
  • Primary liability for breach of contract established against Reader Offers Limited