Mahapatra v TUI UK Ltd

Mahapatra v TUI UK Ltd

The injury occurred on a permanent port installation, not during 'carriage' under the Athens Convention, and the claim has no real prospect of success; proposed amendments under Package Travel Regulations are outside limitation period, do not arise from substantially same facts, and lack evidence of breach of local standards.

Parties
Claimant: Dr Sucheta Mahapatra; Defendant: TUI UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Summary Judgment and Application to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Claim dismissed; summary judgment granted for Defendant; application to amend Particulars of Claim refused.
Legal Topics
Athens Convention, Package Travel Regulations, Summary Judgment, Limitation Periods, Duty of Care
Maritime Law Personal Injury Contract Law Athens Convention Package Travel Regulations Summary Judgment Limitation Periods Duty of Care

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 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Sucheta Mahapatra

Claimant

TUI UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Summary Judgment and Application to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injury occurred during 'carriage' under the Athens Convention
  2. 2 Applicability of the proviso to Article 1(8) of the Athens Convention
  3. 3 Whether the claim under Package Travel Regulations can be amended after limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The injury occurred on a permanent port installation, not during 'carriage' under the Athens Convention, and the claim has no real prospect of success; proposed amendments under Package Travel Regulations are outside limitation period, do not arise from substantially same facts, and lack evidence of breach of local standards.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; summary judgment granted for Defendant; application to amend Particulars of Claim refused.

Orders

  • Defendant's application for summary judgment granted.
  • Claimant's application to amend Particulars of Claim dismissed.