NEWS
Legal experts believe recent judgments could lead to a rise in claims against travel firms
Court rulings suggest clients can cancel further in advance
Ian Taylor
Recent court rulings have enhanced consumers’ rights to cancel holidays well in advance of departure “due to unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances”, say industry lawyers, who warn insurers will be studying the rulings with a view to potential claims. Travlaw partner Nick
Parkinson noted major insurers have threatened an increasing number of ‘subrogated’ claims – where insurers pay out on a claim and then pursue the package organiser for payment – for cancellations due to Covid. Speaking on a Travlaw webinar,
Parkinson suggested insurers AIG and Zurich are “driving loads of claims” and said: “The big question is ‘when can customers cancel?’” The Package Travel Regulations
travelweekly.co.uk STORY TOP
give consumers a right to cancel in “the event of unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances at the place of destination or its immediate vicinity” but say nothing about ‘when’. An Appeal Court ruling in the Sherman v Reader Offers case in May – involving cancellation of a pre-pandemic cruise – determined a consumer may cancel and receive a full refund when there is
“no reasonable possibility” of a
holiday proceeding as advertised (Travel Weekly, May 30). This replaced the previous
understanding that cancellation was justified only when there was “not a flicker of hope” a holiday could go ahead. A more recent case involving
school ski trip operator SkiTeam4 and two schools in Lancashire has extended this by ruling the
schools, which cancelled trips more than two months in advance, were entitled to full refunds. The ruling by a circuit court
judge is not binding on lower courts but Parkinson noted: “It will be influential because it was made by a more senior judge.” One school cancelled nine weeks
before a trip departing in February 2021, and the second cancelled 10 weeks before a trip in March 2021. SkiTeam4 sued for payment under its cancellation terms. The schools counterclaimed and the court ruled they were jointly entitled to £20,000 in repayments. The judge found the prospect of
the trips going ahead at the dates of cancellation was “vanishingly small” and ruled: “If there comes a stage eight weeks or 10 weeks or longer before departure when a reasonably intelligent individual . . . concludes there is no reasonable prospect of
the trip going ahead . . . a traveller should not be expected to wait to exercise their right to terminate.” The judge suggested the timing
“will very much depend upon the circumstances of the case and, in particular, the type of holiday and its length, the status of the travellers and the nature and severity of the unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances. “What is reasonable in one
case may not be in another . . . a school ski trip necessarily involves parents relinquishing parental responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of children.” Parkinson noted consideration
of “the status” of travellers in the judgment could be extended to other vulnerable customers. Travel law barrister Sarah
Prager suggested the ruling was “an indicator of the approach likely to be taken by judges” in other cases.
29 AUGUST 2024 5
PICTURE: Shutterstock/Armmy Picca
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52
