header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
24 January 2014 / Stephanie Cope
Issue: 7591 / Categories: Features , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Broken Brits abroad

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
web_cope

Stephanie Cope scrutinises a recent ruling on the liability of tour operators for accidents abroad
Those booking a holiday through a tour operator reasonably expect the travel and accommodation provided to meet the standards offered by the operator. But what of the holiday maker who suffers a personal injury while on holiday? The law in this area has recently been considered by the Court of Appeal in Japp v Virgin Holidays Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1371, [2013] All ER (D) 99 (Nov). The judgment provides important clarification on the liability of tour operators for injuries involving defects in accommodation and seems generally to improve the position of the tour operator in such claims.

The law

The foundations in relation to a tour operator’s duty of care were laid in Wilson v Best Travel Limited [1993] 1 ALL ER 353 in the High Court. The claim was pursued under s 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Not surprisingly, Phillips J held that the duty of care includes a duty

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll