TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths

TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths

It was unfair for the respondent to advance detailed criticisms of the uncontroverted expert report in submissions without cross-examination, and for the trial judge to accept those criticisms. The trial judge and majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law by not properly applying the rule in Browne v Dunn to the facts. The appellant did not have a fair trial. In the absence of proper challenge, the expert evidence should have been accepted, and the appellant established causation on the balance of probabilities.

Parties
Respondent: TUI UK Ltd; Appellant: Griffiths
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Fair Trial, Burden of Proof, Package Holiday Claims, Cross Examination, Adversarial System
Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Law Expert Evidence Fair Trial Burden of Proof Package Holiday Claims Cross Examination +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TUI UK Ltd

Respondent

Griffiths

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge can reject uncontroverted expert evidence on causation without cross-examination
  2. 2 Scope and application of the rule in Browne v Dunn regarding challenging evidence
  3. 3 Fairness of trial where criticisms of expert evidence are raised only in submissions

Ratio Decidendi

It was unfair for the respondent to advance detailed criticisms of the uncontroverted expert report in submissions without cross-examination, and for the trial judge to accept those criticisms. The trial judge and majority of the Court of Appeal erred in law by not properly applying the rule in Browne v Dunn to the facts. The appellant did not have a fair trial. In the absence of proper challenge, the expert evidence should have been accepted, and the appellant established causation on the balance of probabilities.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Parties to make written submissions on the appropriate form of order within 14 days of the judgment