Japp v Virgin Holidays Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1371 (07 November 2013)

Japp v Virgin Holidays Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1371 (07 November 2013)

The duty of care in relation to structural features such as balcony doors is determined by compliance with local standards at the date of construction/installation. The hotel failed to comply with the relevant local standard (the Barbados National Building Code) at the time of installation, constituting a breach of duty.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 1371
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Moira Japp; Defendant/appellant: Virgin Holidays Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Package Travel Regulations, Duty of Care, Local Safety Standards, Contributory Negligence

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moira Japp

Claimant/respondent

Virgin Holidays Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From County Court

  1. 1 Whether the duty of care for hotel safety is assessed by local standards at the date of construction or at the date of accident
  2. 2 Whether there is a continuing duty to update hotel facilities to comply with developing safety standards
  3. 3 Whether the hotel breached local safety standards at the time of construction

Ratio Decidendi

The duty of care in relation to structural features such as balcony doors is determined by compliance with local standards at the date of construction/installation. The hotel failed to comply with the relevant local standard (the Barbados National Building Code) at the time of installation, constituting a breach of duty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant/respondent upheld
  • No order for further action required