Legal Quiz

Storyline One:

Sue, Lisa and Mance, all legal secretaries, have gone on a girls weekend. It is a package provided by Agent Orange Holidays but it turns out to be totally unsatisfactory.

Aside from the facilities being at a low standard, Sue, while jumping into the bath, fails to notice the rough edges on the bottom of the bath and cuts her legs and buttocks severely.

After their return, on May 1 1999, they write a stern letter to Agent Orange Holidays. They demand compensation and disclosure of documents relating to the selection of the hotel (for the personal injury claim). They tell Agent Orange Holidays that they will accept £4,000 and that this is a “part 36” offer, although they say that the total value of the claim is £6,000.

Agent Orange Holidays, which is totally unfamiliar with the Woolf reforms, ignore the letter and, when County Court proceedings are issued, simply file a holding defence.

Are there any consequences of failure to respond to the request for disclosure of documents?

Are there any consequences from filing a holding defence?

Are there any consequences from the “part 36” offer?

Question one: Yes. The personal injury protocol which applies from April 26 indicates that pre-action disclosure is regarded as extremely important. It is inevitable that the courts would order disclosure and award costs against the tour operator.

Question two: Yes. Failure to set out the nature of the defence and deal with specific allegations will be taken to be an admission of the allegations. In other words the girls can obtain judgement.

Question three: Yes. This is the plaintiffs equivalent of a payment into court. If the court awards a sum equal to or more than the part 36 offer, the girls will automatically recover their legal costs, and the court could order indemnity costs, interest on those costs and the payment of penalty on the damages.

Mr and Mrs UN Sightly decide to book a three-week package holiday to India. The tour operator that they choose to travel with is Star of India Holidays Ltd.

The tour that they book involves a certain number of coach journeys. It also includes a five-day safari which would mean staying in tented accommodation.

Mr and Mrs Slightly look forward to their holiday for weeks but when they finally leave they find the first coach journey to be extremely harrowing.

They are both upset by the poverty that they see around the country. They also claim that the manner in which the vehicle was being driven caused them both to be thrown about the coach so much that they ended up covered from head to toe in bruises.

On questioning the tour operator they are told that this is what conditions are like in India.

Whilst on the five-day safari, Mr Sightly decides to take a walk around the campsite during the night.

Although the camp is reasonably well lit he trips over and takes an unfortunate fall into a purpose-built cesspit.

Horrified by his experiences Mr Sightly also decides to makes a claim for this incident.

Does the coach operator have any liability for the customers’ claims about the sights seen on the coach journeys?

Does the tour operator have any liability for the customers’ claims about the bumping around on the coach journey?

Does the tour operator have any liability for Mr Sightly’s unanticipated descent into the cesspit?

Question one: No. Unless the brochure had a specific representation about what would be seen and what representations were totally contrary to what was actually seen.

Question two: Possibly. It depends upon the standard and speed of driving. Road conditions alone will not provide a defence.

Question three: Possibly. It depends on what caused Mr Sightly to trip or whether he was the author of his own rather smelly misfortune.