The Background

In 2010, the Appellant (Mrs X), entered into a contract with the Respondent, Kuoni Travel Ltd, under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, when she and her husband booked a holiday to Sri Lanka.

During the holiday, Mrs X was assaulted and raped by a hotel employee, who had alleged he was able to guide her to the reception area of the hotel.  She subsequently brought a claim against Kuoni, claiming that the assault and rape were a breach of contract and/or gave rise to liability under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992.

The Issues

The 2 main issues heard before the Supreme Court were:

1.         Did the rape and assault of Mrs X constitute improper performance of the obligations of Kuoni under their contract?

2.         If so, is any liability of Kuoni in respect of the employees conduct excluded by clause 5.10(b) of the contract and/or regulation 15(2)(c) of the 1992

Held

In its Judgment, the Supreme Court took a ‘broad view’ of the obligations owed by tour operators under package holiday contracts. It held that their obligations also included a range of ‘ancillary services’, which are required to provide a holiday of a reasonable standard.

Lord Lloyd Jones stated:

‘It seems to me, however, that the correct focus here should be the provision of the service of guiding a guest. This fell within the “holiday arrangements” which Kuoni undertook would be provided. [The hotel worker] was able to assault Mrs X only as a result of purporting to act as her guide. Furthermore, the assault was a failure to provide that guiding service with due care.’

The court concluded that Kuoni is liable to Mrs X both for breach of contract and under the 1992 package holiday regulations.

Comment

Irwin Mitchell, who represented Mrs X, said that the judgement is of importance to the wider Travel industry, and that ‘The judgment provides clarity to tour operators regarding their legal obligations.’

What is clear is that tour operators are liable for a very broad range of their contractor’s actions and they may in future attempt to limit that range in their booking terms and conditions.

The full judgement can be found here

< Back to case list