Charlotte Rose Crane & Anor v Yorkshire Yurts Limited

Charlotte Rose Crane & Anor v Yorkshire Yurts Limited

The defendant breached the contract by failing to provide a usable yurt, did not use best endeavours, and failed to perform with reasonable skill and care as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The yurt was not fit for purpose, and the goods and services did not conform to the contract. The defendant could not rely on force majeure or adverse weather clauses, as the failure was due to its own method of erection, not weather. The claimants are entitled to a refund of the sum paid for the yurt and compensation for non-pecuniary loss under sections 24 and/or 56 of the 2015 Act.

Parties
Claimant: Charlotte Rose Crane; Claimant: William Henry Easterby; Defendant: Yorkshire Yurts Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Fast Track Trial
Outcome
judgment for the claimants
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Breach of Contract, Remedies Under Consumer Rights Act 2015, Damages for Loss of Enjoyment, Force Majeure, Mitigation of Loss
Contract Law Consumer Protection Implied Terms Breach of Contract Remedies Under Consumer Rights Act 2015 Damages for Loss of Enjoyment Force Majeure Mitigation of Loss

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlotte Rose Crane

Claimant

William Henry Easterby

Claimant

Yorkshire Yurts Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Fast Track Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the contract by failing to provide a usable yurt for the claimants' wedding reception
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to a refund or reduction in price under sections 24 and/or 56 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  3. 3 Whether the claimants can recover for non-pecuniary loss (loss of enjoyment) under the 2015 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant breached the contract by failing to provide a usable yurt, did not use best endeavours, and failed to perform with reasonable skill and care as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The yurt was not fit for purpose, and the goods and services did not conform to the contract. The defendant could not rely on force majeure or adverse weather clauses, as the failure was due to its own method of erection, not weather. The claimants are entitled to a refund of the sum paid for the yurt and compensation for non-pecuniary loss under sections 24 and/or 56 of the 2015 Act.

Court Disposition

judgment for the claimants

Orders

  • Defendant to pay claimants £16,504.00 as refund/reduction under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  • Defendant to pay interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984