The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Falcon Leisure Group (Overseas) Ltd and affirmed a High Court order in favour of Mary Scaife, who was injured during a package holiday in Spain. The judgment, delivered by Macken J on 4 December 2007, concerned the organiser’s liability under the Package Holidays and Travel Trade Act 1995.
Scaife booked a package holiday through a travelling companion on 29 January 1998. It included flights and half-board accommodation at the Cambrils Princess Hotel in Salou. On 21 May 1998, while walking towards the buffet during an evening meal, she slipped on liquid food behind a pillar. The High Court found that she could not see the spill or know it was there before falling. Her physical injuries were not disputed on appeal.
The organiser argued that the 1995 Act did not make it strictly liable for an accidental act of negligence by a hotel service supplier. It submitted that Scaife first had to establish fault by the hotel and that the relevant standard should be the one applicable in Spain. Scaife’s counsel said the organiser was liable for proper performance of the package obligations, including services supplied by the hotel, subject to the statutory exceptions where the failure could not have been foreseen or forestalled despite due care.
The Supreme Court held that the Act makes the organiser primarily liable to the consumer for proper performance of the package contract, whether the services are delivered by the organiser or another supplier. It rejected strict liability: the applicable standard was reasonable skill and care, implied into the contract where needed. The court also rejected the argument that the hotel obligation covered only the safety of the building; the half-board arrangement included the evening meal.
The court relied on the High Court’s accepted evidence that the spill was about 30 inches across, likely soup or sauce, and appeared to have come from staff clearing food. The spill had not been removed, and there was no warning, barrier or tape. After the fall, staff were directed to bring absorbent material to cover and clear the area. The Supreme Court said this supported the finding that the hotel had a system capable of addressing such a hazard, but it had not operated before Scaife fell. The service was therefore not supplied with reasonable skill and care, and the High Court was entitled to find for her.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. The judgment does not state the amount of damages in the supplied text.