TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48 concerned a man who contracted a serious stomach upset, which has left him with long-term problems, while on an all-inclusive package holiday at a hotel resort in Turkey with his wife and son. At trial, the couple gave uncontested evidence on the facts and also presented evidence from an expert witness, Professor Pennington, that the likely cause of the stomach upset was the hotel food and drink.
TUI neither cross-examined Professor Pennington nor presented any expert evidence of its own as regards causation. In its closing submission, however, TUI argued the claimant had failed to prove his case, pointing out incomplete explanations, failure to discount alternative causes and other deficiencies in Professor Pennington’s report.
The trial judge agreed with TUI’s criticism of the export report and dismissed the claim.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, however, Lord Hodge and four Justices unanimously held the trial judge was wrong to allow TUI’s detailed criticism of the expert report and to accept those submissions. It held, in doing so, she denied Griffiths a fair trial.
Delivering the main judgment, Lord Hodge summarised the key points: ‘The question is whether the trial judge was entitled to find that the claimant had not proved his case when the claimant’s expert had given uncontroverted evidence as to the cause of the illness, which was not illogical, incoherent or inconsistent, based on any misunderstanding of the facts, or based on unrealistic assumptions, but was criticised as being incomplete in its explanations and for its failure expressly to discount on the balance of probabilities other possible causes of Mr Griffiths’ illness.’
