On The Beach Limited & Ors v Ryanair UK Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2694 (Comm)
Rosemary Sherman & Anor v Reader Offers Limited
26 April 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 412
Court of Appeal
Mr. and Mrs. Sherman's Arctic cruise was way different than advertised because of unexpected ice. The court said the travel company should have told them about the big changes sooner and let them decide if they still wanted to go. Because they didn't, the company has to pay them back, but not as much as they originally wanted. The court thinks everyone should try to settle this outside of court.
Key Facts
- •Mr and Mrs Sherman booked a Northwest Passage cruise with Reader Offers Ltd (ROL).
- •Due to ice conditions, the cruise significantly deviated from the advertised itinerary.
- •The Shermans claimed a refund and compensation for breach of contract.
- •The case went through the County Court, High Court, and Court of Appeal.
- •A key dispute was whether the detailed itinerary was a contractual term.
Legal Principles
Package Travel Regulations 1992 (now superseded) implied warranties from brochure particulars.
1992 Regulations
Contract formation principles under English law determine when a contract is made, not the 1992 Regulations.
English Contract Law
Regulation 9 of the 1992 Regulations implies a condition that the contract terms are in writing and communicated before the contract is made. This is a condition, not a condition precedent; its breach allows contract termination and damages.
Regulation 9, 1992 Regulations
Regulation 12 of the 1992 Regulations deals with significant alterations to essential contract terms before departure, requiring notification and consumer choice to cancel or accept.
Regulation 12, 1992 Regulations
Regulation 14 of the 1992 Regulations deals with significant proportions of services not provided after departure, obligating the organiser to make alternative arrangements or provide compensation.
Regulation 14, 1992 Regulations
Regulation 15 of the 1992 Regulations provides a defence for failure to perform if due to unusual and unforeseeable circumstances beyond control.
Regulation 15, 1992 Regulations
ROL's terms and conditions, particularly clause 7, distinguished between minor and major changes to itineraries, impacting compensation.
ROL's Booking Conditions, Clause 7
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
ROL breached contract by failing to notify Shermans of significant itinerary changes and their rights under Regulation 12 and its terms and conditions, and by failing to provide a significant proportion of the contracted services (Regulation 14). The ice conditions, while beyond ROL’s control, were foreseeable.
Remitted to County Court for assessment of compensation.
To determine what the Shermans would have done had they received proper notification of the changes and their rights; if they would have cancelled, a refund plus modest compensation for disappointment; if they would have proceeded, compensation for the difference between the price paid and the value of services received.