Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Clodagh Daly v Irish Group Travel Limited trading as “Crystal Holidays”, Trevor Hamer, Rafting- Centre-Taxenbach Trevor Hamer Keg and Christine Hamer
    • Member State: Ireland
    • Common Name:N/A
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 16/05/2003
    • Court: The High Court
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Clodagh Daly
    • Defendant: Irish Group Travel Limited trading as “Crystal Holidays” (the “First Named Defendant”) Trevor Hamer, Rafting- Centre-Taxenbach Trevor Hamer Keg and Christine Hamer (the “Second to Fourth Named Defendants”)
    • Keywords: contract for the provision of accommodation, transport, catering or leisure services, jurisdiction, liability, package travel, travel
  • Directive Articles
    Package Travel Directive, link
  • Headnote
    Claims against travel agents and suppliers from different jurisdictions will not be heard together due to similarity alone. This will only be allowed where it necessary to avoid conflicting results.
  • Facts
    The Plaintiff instituted proceedings when her husband died while on a white river rafting trip on an excursion which was encouraged by the First Named Defendant and provided by the Second to Fourth Named Defendants. The Second to Fourth Named Defendants contested the jurisdiction of the High Court to hear the claim against them in Ireland.
    It was alleged, inter alia, that the First Named Defendant was liable for the improper performance of its obligations under and by virtue of s. 20 of the Package Holidays and Travel Trade Act 1995, irrespective of whether such obligations were to be performed by the Second to Fourth Named Defendants as suppliers of the river rafting service.
    The Court considered whether the Plaintiff could bring proceedings in Ireland against both the Irish and Austrian defendants, and whether there were prima facie grounds for alleging a breach of an obligation by the First Named which could have contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries.
  • Legal issue
    Is there an overlap of issues as between the claims against the travel agent and service supplier that require connecting the proceedings?
  • Decision

    The Court found that a plausible prima facie case did lie against the First Named Defendant in these proceedings, from an alleged failure to check the competence of the persons involved in guiding the trip and warn the plaintiff and/or her deceased husband of the dangers involved in the trip. Travel agents are obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety and well-being of their customers.
    The claims against the respective defendants were must be so closely connected that it was expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings in different jurisdictions, rather than just similarity of claims.

    URL: N/A

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The Plaintiffs’ application was refused.