Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a judgment handed down orally on 1 March 2024 by a judge at Leicester County Court following a three-day trial in December 2023. The Appellant, a school teacher, traveled to Mexico in July 2016 for a holiday booked through the Respondent at an all-inclusive hotel on the Pacific coast. During the holiday, the Appellant suffered diarrhoea and vomiting, symptoms which continued after her return to the UK and led to diagnoses of gastroenteritis and Post Infective Irritable Bowel Syndrome, accompanied by anxiety and stress.
The Appellant claimed the illness was caused by ingestion of a pathogen, primarily cyclospora, in contaminated food or drink at the hotel. Stool samples tested by a regional laboratory identified cyclospora oocytes, but a subsequent test by a national reference laboratory did not confirm this finding. The Appellant alternatively argued that another pathogen could have caused the illness and alleged inadequate food hygiene at the hotel.
The Respondent denied liability, disputing that the Appellant fell ill during the holiday, contesting the presence of cyclospora, and denying that any pathogen was ingested from the hotel’s food or drink. The claim was framed as a breach of contract under implied terms relating to satisfactory quality and reasonable care and skill in services, as well as liability under the Package Travel Regulations. The trial judge dismissed the Appellant’s claim.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that the pathogen causing her illness was cyclospora.
- Whether the Appellant proved on the balance of probabilities that her illness was caused by a pathogen ingested from food or drink consumed at the hotel, regardless of the pathogen’s identity.
- Whether the trial judge erred in his findings of fact, evaluation of expert evidence, or adequacy of reasons given for his conclusions.
- Whether permission to appeal should be granted and, if so, whether the appeal should be allowed.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The trial judge misunderstood or misremembered evidence concerning the laboratory tests for cyclospora, incorrectly treating the tests as binary and failing to give proper weight to the regional laboratory’s positive result despite scientific evidence that a single positive test suffices to prove probability of infection.
- The judge failed to appreciate that all expert witnesses agreed the regional laboratory’s positive result made cyclospora infection probable, and misinterpreted the Respondent’s microbiology expert’s testimony, which was argued to support the Appellant’s case.
- The judge did not adequately address or give reasons for rejecting scientific literature supporting the presence of cyclospora and related explanations for differing test results, such as low shedding of oocytes or differing laboratory techniques.
- The judge erred in finding that the Appellant had not proven that the pathogen was ingested from the hotel’s food or drink, despite the Appellant’s evidence that she consumed no food or drink outside the hotel and concerns about the hotel’s hygiene standards.
- The judge overlooked or gave insufficient weight to evidence of poor food hygiene, past outbreaks, and alleged non-disclosure of laboratory reports on food and drink contamination by the Respondent or the hotel.
Respondent's Arguments
- The judge’s conclusions on the cyclospora issue were supported by ample evidence, particularly the national reference laboratory’s negative test and the expert microbiologist’s views, which the judge properly preferred.
- The Respondent’s expert’s testimony was not conceded as claimed by the Appellant; the judge correctly interpreted the evidence and was entitled to reject the Appellant’s interpretation.
- The judge gave adequate reasons for his findings on both the cyclospora and causation issues.
- The absence of evidence of a general outbreak and the possibility of alternative infection sources, such as contaminated surfaces, were valid considerations supporting the dismissal of the claim.
- The Appellant failed to cross-examine on certain points and should not be permitted to raise new arguments on appeal that were not explored at trial.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Wood v TUI Travel plc t/a First Choice [2017] EWCA Civ 11; [2018] QB 927 |
Establishment of legal obligations of package holiday providers under contract and Package Travel Regulations |
Confirmed existence of implied contractual terms and statutory duties relevant to the Respondent's liability for hotel services |
| Wheeldon Bros Waste Ltd v Millenium Insurance Co Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2403; [2019] 4 WLR 56 |
Appellate court approach to appeals on findings of fact and expert evidence |
Guided the court’s deferential approach to the trial judge’s factual and expert evidence findings |
| Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 5; [2014] ETMR 26 |
Warning against appellate interference with trial judge’s findings of fact unless compelling reasons exist |
Supported the court’s conclusion that the trial judge’s findings were reasonable and should not be disturbed |
| Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; [2014] 1 WLR 2600 |
Standard for appellate interference with findings of fact |
Reinforced the high threshold for overturning factual findings absent identifiable errors |
| Grizzly Business Ltd v Stena Drilling Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 94 |
Review of appellate standards for findings of fact and expert evidence |
Confirmed that the judge’s conclusions were supported by evidence and not unreasonable |
| Thomson v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 555; [2005] PNLR 38 |
Appellate review of evaluations based on expert evidence |
Supported the court’s cautious approach to disturbing trial judge’s evaluation of expert evidence |
| Glas SAS (London Branch) v European Topsoho SARL [2025] EWCA Civ 933 |
Adequacy of reasons in judgments |
Applied principles requiring sufficient reasoning to enable parties and appellate courts to understand decisions |
| English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 605; [2002] 1 WLR 2409 |
Requirements for adequacy of judicial reasoning |
Reiterated the need for judges to provide adequate reasons for their decisions |
| Simetra Global Assets v Ikon Finance Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1413; [2019] 4 WLR 112 |
Guidance on adequacy of reasons in findings of fact |
Informed the court’s assessment of the sufficiency of the trial judge’s reasoning |
| Griffiths v Tui (UK) Ltd [2023] UKSC 48; [2023] 3 WLR 1204 |
Rule in Browne v Dunn and obligation to cross-examine on material points |
Supported the Respondent’s submission that points not raised in cross-examination should not be allowed on appeal |
| Gray v Global Energy Horizons Corp [2020] EWCA Civ 1668; 2021 1 WLR 2264 |
Criteria for granting permission to appeal on factual issues |
Guided the court’s approach to permission to appeal and assessment of real prospect of success |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court conducted a detailed review of the evidence and the trial judge’s judgment, focusing primarily on the two central issues: whether the Appellant’s illness was caused by cyclospora, and whether the illness was caused by ingestion of a pathogen from food or drink at the hotel.
On the cyclospora issue, the court acknowledged conflicting expert evidence from microbiologists. The Appellant’s expert supported the regional laboratory’s positive test result, while the Respondent’s expert favoured the national reference laboratory’s negative test result. The court found the trial judge’s preference for the Respondent’s expert was reasonable and supported by evidence, noting the national reference laboratory’s greater expertise and status as the gold standard. The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that the judge misunderstood the evidence or failed to give adequate reasons, finding that the judge properly considered and weighed all relevant evidence, including scientific literature and explanations for differing test results.
Regarding the causation issue, the court accepted the judge’s finding that the Appellant became ill during the holiday and that her illness was caused by a pathogen. However, the judge did not accept that the pathogen was proven to have been ingested from the hotel’s food or drink. The court found that the judge’s consideration of alternative infection sources, such as contact with contaminated surfaces or swimming, was a legitimate evaluation of circumstantial evidence. The judge’s reliance on the absence of a general outbreak and the quality of the hotel’s hygiene audit was within his discretion. The court found no error in the judge’s allocation of the burden of proof or his ultimate conclusion that the Appellant failed to prove causation on the balance of probabilities.
The court also addressed procedural and evidential points, including the adequacy of the judge’s reasons and the obligation to cross-examine witnesses on material points. It found the judge’s reasons sufficient for the parties and the appeal court to understand the decision. The court rejected the Appellant’s attempt to raise new points on appeal that were not the subject of cross-examination at trial.
In sum, the appellate court found that the trial judge’s factual findings and evaluations of expert evidence were supported by the record and that the judge gave adequate reasons. The court emphasized the well-established principle that appellate courts should not interfere with a trial judge’s findings of fact unless no reasonable judge could have reached them. The court concluded that the judge’s decision fell well within the range of reasonable outcomes.
Holding and Implications
The court granted permission to appeal but ultimately DISMISSED the Appellant's appeal.
The direct effect of this decision is the affirmation of the trial judge’s dismissal of the Appellant’s claim against the Respondent. No new legal precedent was established. The court’s ruling reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not lightly overturn findings of fact and evaluations of expert evidence made by trial judges, especially where the judge’s reasoning is adequate and supported by the evidence. The decision underscores the importance of the burden of proof in civil claims and the necessity for claimants to establish causation on the balance of probabilities.