Home > Barristers > Sarah Prager > Sarah Prager Case List


Sarah Prager Case List




<< View barrister profile

Lougheed -v- On the Beach Ltd

[2014] EWCA Civ

Summary:

Court of Appeal re-emphasises the need for evidence of local standards in cases brought under the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 - Sarah Prager summarises the judgment below.

On 27 November 2014 the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Lougheed v On the Beach Limited [2014] EWCA Civ. The claim arose out of a slipping accident which took place in Spain. At first instance the Defendant had been found liable for the accident notwithstanding the absence of any evidence of local standards, because its hotelier had conceded that floors ought not to be left in a wet condition. The appeal succeeded on the grounds that the trial judge had wrongly relied on the evidence of the hotelier as evidence of local standards, and, distinguishing Ward v Tesco Stores [1976] 1 WLR 810, that the trial judge was wrong as a matter of law to find that the Defendant bore any evidential burden of proof in the particular case. Sarah acted for the Appellant


Japp v Virgin Holidays Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1371


Summary:

In 2008, whilst on holiday in Barbados, the claimant suffered personal injuries when she walked into a closed glass balcony door. She brought a claim for damages for personal injury against the defendant tour operator, Virgin Holidays Ltd (Virgin). At the heart of the issue were local standards and, in particular, the Barbados National Building Code, 1993 edition. The judge, accordingly, gave judgment in favour of the claimant (subject to a 20% deduction for contributory negligence) in the sum of 19,200. Virgin appealed against the judge's finding of liability. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held amongst other things, the judge had been entitled to accept expert evidence that the code represented local standards at the time the hotel had been constructed.


Natalie Lisa Harrison v Jagged Globe (Alpine) Limited

[2012] EWCA Civ 835


Summary:

A tour operator was not liable for injuries sustained by an individual on a self-led mountaineering expedition in Ecuador during two "stunt" falls which were being filmed. The stunts had been devised by the expedition's leader and formed no part of the tour operator's itinerary, and there was no duty on the tour operator to protect participants from risks from unauthorised activity.

Sarah Prager acted for the Respondent


Clyde v Djanogly City Academy, Coombs

unreported, 18th January 2010

Summary:

An interesting case arising out of a school ski trip to Italy. The First Defendant arranged the trip. During the course of it the Claimant, Second Defendant and other schoolchildren went on a tobogganing excursion. The Claimant was injured when the Second Defendant collided with her whilst tobogganing. The Claimant asserted that the trip was inadequately supervised and that no adequate instruction had been given to either girl; further, that if adequate instruction had been given, the Second Defendant had not heeded it. The case raised questions around the extent of the duty owed by the school and of issues of volenti. Ultimately, however, it settled on a basis favourable to the Claimant.

Sarah Prager was Counsel for the Claimant.


Sewell v Saga Holidays

unreported, 24th August 2011

Summary:

A case interpreting the reach of the Package Travel Regulations and applying the Defendant’s standard terms and conditions. The Claimant had fallen whilst stepping onto a gangplank provided by the local port authority to give access to the riverboat provided by the Defendant for a Danube cruise. At first instance and on appeal the Claimant succeeded. The court held that the Defendant was responsible for the provision of assistance in crossing the gangplank, which was unsafe. This was so notwithstanding the fact that the provision of the gangplank was outside the Defendant’s control and it excluded liability for local amenities in its standard terms.

Sarah Prager was Counsel for the Claimant.


Michael v Musgrave

unreported, 14th June 2011

Summary:

The case turned on the definition of a ‘ship’ within the meaning of the Athens Convention. The Claimant had been injured in the course of an excursion around the Menai Straits in a rigid inflatable boat. He submitted that the boat was not a ship because it was a relatively small vessel licensed to travel 20 miles and only in favourable weather. The Defendant submitted that it was a ship because it was capable of travelling over 100 miles and was seaworthy. Master Kay found that a ship must be capable of being used in navigation and designed to do so. Regard should be had to what the vessel can and does do – if it goes to sea it is a ship.

Sarah Prager was Counsel for the Claimant.


Harrison v Jagged Globe

unreported, 14th April 2011

Summary:

An unusual case deciding the extent of a tour operator’s tortious duty to a consumer. The Claimant had gone on a mountaineering package holiday booked with the Defendant. The Defendant had provided local guides. When the guides assisted her in creating ‘stunts’ for the benefit of a video being made on behalf of Ranulph Fiennes, she fell into a crevasse. The Defendant was liable for their failure to provide competent advice and assistance, notwithstanding the fact that the provision of stunts had not been provided for contractually and was not in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was concluded.  

Permission to appeal granted by the Court of Appeal on the basis of public interest – awaiting hearing date

Sarah Prager was Counsel for the Claimant.


Milner v Carnival Plc

[2010] EWCA Civ 389


Summary:

CONSEQUENTIAL LOSS : CRUISE SHIPS : DIMINUTION IN VALUE : HOLIDAY CLAIMS : LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION : MEASURE OF DAMAGES : MENTAL DISTRESS : WASTED EXPENDITURE : WORLD CRUISE ON LUXURY LINER : APPROPRIATE MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR RUINED HOLIDAY

 

The Court of Appeal assessed the correct measure of damages to be awarded to a couple as compensation for their ruined holiday.


Adams v Thomson Holidays

unreported, 31st July 2009.

Summary:

Held: The court had power under CPR Part 19.5 to allow a new Defendant to be substituted in a claim by a cruise ship passenger under the Athens Convention 1974 after the two year time-limit for bringing proceedings under the Convention had expired.


Prince v Prince

Summary:

Held: French law applied under s.11 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 in a claim brought by an English Claimant against her blameless husband, who was driving a car in France when a French driver collided with the rear of it. Under the loi badinter the Defendant would be liable for the accident. The presumptive applicable law was not displaced.


Sibley v Sibley

unreported, 2 March 2010

Summary:

Held: French law applied under s.11 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 in a claim brought by an English Claimant against her blameless husband, who was driving a car in France when a French motorcyclist collided with it. Under the loi badinter the Defendant would be liable for the accident. The presumptive applicable law was not displaced.


Tantera v Moore

Summary:

Held: The High Court judge had placed discipline above the rationale of CPR Part 20 and had erred in refusing to allow a third party to be represented at the liability hearing of a personal injury action where the third party was at risk.


Moore v Hotelplan Ltd

[2010] EWHC 276 (QB)


Summary:

A holiday tour operator was liable to a holidaymaker for the injuries she sustained in a snowmobile accident during a holiday booked under the terms of a holiday contract. Although the snowmobile excursion was provided by a third party whose breach of duty of care had caused the accident, the tour operator had arranged the excursion as part of the holiday contract, and it was not simply acting as agent for the third party.


Holden v First Choice Holidays & Flights Limited

LTL 14/9/2006

Summary:

Summary available on Lawtel


Kempson v First Choice Holidays & Flights Limited

LTL 19/10/07

Summary:

Summary available on Lawtel


Harbord v Thomas Cook Airlines & Anor

LTL 2/6/06

Summary:

A flight that was due to leave from Stansted airport but was altered so that it departed from Manchester 24 hours later amounted to a cancelled flight rather than a delayed flight, therefore a passenger was entitled to claim compensation where no exceptional circumstances existed for the cancellation.


Ackerley v Archers Tours Limited

LTL 19/6/07

Summary:

Summary available on Lawtel