Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE ORR,LORD JUSTICE JAMES |
| Judgment Date | 05 February 1974 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1974] EWCA Civ J0205-1 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 05 February 1974 |
[1974] EWCA Civ J0205-1
The Master of the Rolls (Lord Denning)
Lord Justice Orr and
Lord Justice James.
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Mr. G.W. CHEYNE appeared on behalf of the Appellants.
Mr. J.J. DAVIES appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Monday, 4th February, 1974
Judgment on application to adduce further evidence.
Mr. Jackson arranged with Horizon Holidays Ltd. for a holiday in Ceylon for himself and his family in January and February of 1971. Afterwards he claimed that the accommodation did not come up to what was promised or represented and he sued for damages. Liability was admitted and the issue was simply one of damages. Judge Fay awarded the sum of £1100 as damages. There is an appeal on quantum. But there is a preliminary application. Horizon Holidays Ltd. seek to adduce fresh evidence. Alternatively they ask that there should be a new trial. They say that they have discovered fresh evidence from two witnesses which they wish to call. They have, of course, to satisfy the three conditions laid down in Ladd v. Marshall (1954) 1 W.L.R. 1489. The first is that "the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial".
The first of the proposed witnesses is the courier, Miss Redgrave, who represented Horizon Holidays in Ceylon. She made a report to them within a few weeks after the holiday. It was quite a long report telling all that happened to Mr. Jackson and his family. She was clearly a witness whom they ought to have called. They tried to get her to come. As soon as the case was listed they wrote to her. She was away in the Middle East somewhere. Her father wrote back saying that it would be expensive for her to come back. He suggested that the company might reimburse her costs up to £250. He added "I imagine we would be able to get in touch with her by the beginning of June." The defendants and their advisers thought that was an improper suggestion by the father. They did not try any more to get her as a witness. It seems to me that the defendants, if they used reasonable dilgence, would have followed upthat letter. They would have inquired when Miss Eadgrave would be back. On getting that information they would have applied for an adjournment of the case until such time as she was available to give evidence. But they did nothing of that kind. The case came into the list. No application was made for an adjournment. Nothing was said about Miss Redgrave's absence. I think she must have been available if reasonable diligence had been taken.
Then the other witness they want is a Mrs. Rogerson. She is a lady who saw Judge Fay's decision in this case reported in the newspapers. She wrote to Horizon Holidays Ltd. She was with the same party on holiday at the same time in Ceylon. She said that they had a wonderful holiday and that a lot of this was due to the comfort of the hotel and the attention of the staff. Now, she was a lady about whom the defendants ought to have known. They had the names of the people in the party. They could have written to them. If they had written to Mrs. Rogerson, she would no doubt have been willing to give evidence for them. But they did not. The manager was asked about it at the trial; "Have not you bothered to find out, in view of this case?" His answer was: "I am sorry, Sir, I did not think it was relevant."
In the case of this witness also, I think she would have been available if reasonable diligence had been shown.
In the case of both witnesses, the defendants have not satisfied the requirements laid down in Ladd v. Marshall for the reception of fresh evidence. I think the motion for new evidence falls and must be dismissed.
Application by the plaintiff respondent to adduce additional ground for supporting the Judge's decision was not objected to by appellant defendants and was granted.
Tuesday, 5th February, 1974.
Judgment on appeal on quantum of damages.
Mr. Jackson is a young man, in his mid twenties. He has been very successful in his business. He is married with three small children. In November 1970 there were twin boys of 3 years of age; and his wife had just had her third child. He had been working very hard. They determined to have a holiday in the sun. He decided upon Ceylon. He enquired of Horizon Holidays Ltd. He made arrangements with their agent, a Mrs. Brenner, for a holiday at a hotel, the Pegasus Reef Hotel, Hendala Point, Ceylon. He wrote them a letter which shows that he wanted everything of the highest standard:-
"With reference to our telephone conversation would you please confirm that you can arrange for my wife myself and my two twin boys aged 3 years to stay for 28 days from 23rd January to stay at the Hotel Pegasus Beef, Hendala Point, Ceylon. Would you also arrange that the children's room has an adjoining door to our room this is essential and is a condition of me booking this holiday. Would you please make sure that the balcony is facing the sea and would you also confirm the distance the hotel is from the sea. Would you confirm that the meals are four course with a choice of 3 or 4 dishes to each course. Could you confirm that there has been arrangements made that an English speaking Doctor would call on the Hotel if needed. Would you please stake a clear answer to all these questions appreciating that you might have difficulties in answering some of these questions and not to send and evasive answers to any of these questions."
He spoke on the telephone to Mrs. Brenner. She led him tobelieve that the hotel would come up to his expectation. She wrote on the booking form:-
"Remarks Twins Room with connecting door essential. Total charge £1432."
He sent it in and booked the holiday.
In the middle of January it was discovered that the Pegasus Reef Hotel would not be ready in time. So Horizon Holidays recommended a substitute. This was Brown's Beach Hotel. It was described in the advertisement as being
…"superbly situated right on the beach with all facilities for an enjoyable holiday, including mini-golf, excellent restaurant, cocktail lounge, swimming pool, beauty saloon, hairdressers and gift shop… The bedrooms are well furnished and equipped in modern style. All rooms have private bath, shower, W.C., sea view and air-conditioning."
Mr. Jackson had some hesitation about this other hotel. But Horizon Holidays assured him that it would be up to his expectation. So Mr. Jackson accepted it. But Horizon Holidays reduced the charge. Instead of the price being the total sum of £1434, now, because of the change of hotel, it would be £1200. That included air travel to Ceylon and back and a holiday for four weeks. So they went there. The courier, Miss Redgrave, met them and took them to Brown's Beach Hotel. But they were greatly disappointed. Their room had not got a connecting door with the room for the children at all. The room for the children was milldewed — black with milldew, at the bottom. There was fungus growing on the walls The toilet was stained. The shower was dirty. There was no bath. They could not let the children sleep in it. So for the first three days they had all the family in one room. The twochildren were put into one of the single beds and the two adults in the other single bed. After the first three days they were moved into what was said to be one of the best suites in the hotel. Even then, they had to put the children in to sleep in the sitting room and the parents in the bedroom. There was dirty linen upon the bed. There was no private bath but only a shower; no mini-golf course; no swimming pool, no beauty saloon, no hairdressers' saloon. Worst of all was the cooking. There was no choice of dishes. On some occasions, however, curry was served as an alternative to the main dish. They found the food very distasteful. It appeared to be booked in coconut oil. There was a pervasive taste because of its manner of cooking. They were so uncomfortable at Brown's Hotel, that after a fortnight they moved to the Pegasus Reef Hotel. It appears that by that time it was nearing completion. But a lot of building...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction U.K. Ltd
...22 1. The majority of the Court of Appeal followed, in the case of Goff L.J. with expressed reluctance, its previous decision in Jackson v. Horizon Holidays Ltd. [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1468.I am not prepared to dissent from the actual decision in that case. It may be supported either as a broad d......
-
Heywood v Wellers
...also damages for the disappointment, upset and mental distress which you suffered - see Jarvis v. Swan's Tours (1973) Q.B. 233; Jackson v. Horizon Holidays (1975) 1 W.L.R. 1468. 31 So here, Mrs. Heywood employed the solicitors to take proceedings at law to protect her from molestation by Mr......
-
Burke v Dublin Corporation
...plaintiff depended upon his successfully establishing negligence on the part of the defendant. Jackson v. Horizon Holidays Ltd.WLR [1975] 1 W.L.R. 1468 distinguished. Dictaof Lord Wilberforce in Woodar Investment v. Wimpey ConstructionWLR [1980] 1 W.L.R. 277 considered. 11. That the trial j......
- Cowden and Another v British Airways Plc
-
Table of Cases
...Life Leisure Limited v Revenue & Customs Commissioners (2006) BVC 2803, [2006] 7 WLUK 314 3.10, 3.11 Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975] 1 WLR 1468, [1975] 3 All ER 92, 119 SJ 759, CA 2.16–2.18, 2.20, 7.29, 7.30, 7.34 James v Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council [1993] PIQR P114, [1992] 10 ......
-
Table of Cases
...206 IRC v Educational Grants Association Ltd [1967] Ch 993, [1967] 3 WLR 41, [1967] 2 All ER 893, HL 210 Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468, [1975] 3 All ER 92, 119 SJ 759, CA 99, 100 Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905), US Sup Ct 384 Jamal v Moolla Dawood Sons & Co [19......
-
Compensation for Harm to Intangible Interests: Non-pecuniary and Aggravated Damages
...by the trial judge (£31.72), the total is £124.99 — the amount awarded by the Court of Appeal. 51 Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd , [1975] 1 WLR 1468 (CA); Pitzel v Saskatchewan Motor Club Travel Agency Ltd (1983), 149 DLR (3d) 122 (Sask QB); Fenton v Sand & Sea Travel Ltd (1992), 4 Alta LR ......
-
Table of cases
...(3d) 577, [1980] 4 WWR 494 ...................................................................... 508 Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd, [1975] 1 WLR 1468, [1975] 3 All ER 92, 119 Sol Jo 759 (CA) ................................................................. 255 Jackson v Lai, [2007] BCJ No......