The Court of Appeal in its decision referred to two other decisions given in relation to similar cases in the names respectively of Josephine Magro vs Mondial Holidays (Rikors no. 19/06) and George Magro et vs Mondial Holidays (Rikors No. 20/06) both decided by the Court of Appeal on the 28th March 2007.
The Court in examining whether the Tribunal had actually acted contrary to the requisite of observing the principles of natural justice, noted that the Tribunal is at law required to decide cases according to the substantive merits and justice of the case and in accordance with equity. The Court said that though the Tribunal is not bound with the normal procedural rules that bind an ordinary court of law, it is still required to act in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the evaluation of facts submitted to the Tribunal is not subject to the Court of Appeal’s review unless it results that such evaluation by the Tribunal is not supported by a logical and congruent reasoning. The Court said that in the appeal under examination the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be considered to be truly logical, the reasoning being contradictory. The Court held that if the Tribunal accepted defendant company’s plea that it was not aware of hurricane Frances, then defendant company cannot be held responsible if this irresistible force of nature ruined consumers’ vacation. The Court further noted that in such circumstances the statement of the Tribunal that it considered the version of consumers to be credible as lacking any plausible and intelligent explanation to justify the Tribunal’s decision in favour of consumers.
The Court further observed that in various jurisdictions a traveller or tourist has the right to seek damages when his holiday is ruined and does not have the full enjoyment of his holiday. The Court said that such damages are of moral nature, noting that such damages must be related to the non-compliance and wrong execution by the tour organiser of his obligations towards the consumer. The Court noted that this did not happen in the case under appeal.
The Court for the above reasons decided in favour of defendant company Mondial Holidays.