Law firm Travlaw has highlighted two county court decisions on Covid-era cancellations that clarify the rights of travel firms and travellers following appeals.
Both cases involved refund claims against Loveholidays owner We Love Holidays.
The first case last autumn of Dennison v We Love Holidays involved a refund for a package holiday the claimant cancelled due to quarantine restrictions on arrivals to the UK.
Loveholidays paid a partial refund, but referred the claimant to Ryanair for a flights refund, which the airline refused because the flights operated.
The claimant won a full refund, with Travlaw senior counsel Stephen Mason noting the judge decided “the mere fact the claimant would have to quarantine on return entitled her to a full refund”.
Travlaw appealed on behalf of We Love Holidays and Mason said: “The case turned on Regulation 12 (7) of the Package Travel Regulations, which states travellers can cancel [with no fee] in the event of unavoidable or extraordinary circumstances at the place of destination that significantly affect the performance of the package or carriage of passengers.”
The appeal judge found the earlier ruling wrong since restrictions on return to the UK did not come under Regulation 12, therefore normal cancellation terms applied. Mason described it as “a very important decision for the industry”.
The second case of Kirk v We Love Holidays involved a booking to Kos. The original hotel booked was closed, but Loveholidays offered a comparable hotel nearby. There was no advice against travel, flights were operating and other hotels remained open, but the claimants sought a refund “due to the pandemic”. Loveholidays refunded the accommodation, but not the flights.
The judge at the initial hearing ruled the claimants were entitled to a full refund because the hotel was closed and the PTRs allow for a refund due to “unavoidable and extraordinary circumstances at the place of destination”. Mason said: “The judge ruled the place of destination was the hotel.”
Travlaw senior associate Nick Parkinson said: “Is a hotel really the destination? We went to appeal. The appeal judge ruled the hotel was not the place of destination. We Love Holidays was entitled to make a change as is standard industry practice. It brought some welcome clarity.”