Father can sue for family's spoilt holiday Court of Appeal Before Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Orr and Lord Justice James A man who books a holiday for himself and his family at a hotel which falls far short of the holiday brochure description can claim damages not only for his own vex- ation and disappointment but also for the discomfort, vexation and upset suffered by the whole family. The Master of the Rolls so said when the Court of Appeal dis- missed an appeal on. quantum of damages by Horizon Holidays Ltd, of Kings Road, Chelsea, from Judge Edgar Fay, sitting as an additional judge of the Queen's Bench Division, awarding to Mr Julien Jackson, of Manor Road, Chigwell, Essex, ?1,100 as damages for breach of warranty and repre- sentation In a contract to provide him, his- wife, and his twin boys :of three, with a four-week holiday In Ceylon. In December, 1970, Mr Jackson, after making certain inquiries and stipulations In writing to Horizon's agent, booked a holiday for him- self and his family at the Pegasus Reef Hotel, Hendala Point, Ceylon, at a cost of ?1,450. He had stipu- lated, inter alia, that the children's room should have an adjoining door to the parents' room. They were to leave on January 28. On the 14th he was told that the Pegasus would not be ready in time and was offered a transfer booking at Brown's Beach Hotel, Negombo. After studying the Horizon brochure which described Brown's -Beach hotel in glowing terms as having facilities including " mini- eolf. excellent restaurant, cocktail lounge, swimming pool, beauty aalou, hairdressers' salong" and bedrooms having private baths, and other conveniences, he agreed to the transfer. W'hen they arrived ,their rooms wee not adjoining, , there was mildew on the wals, the ' hower was dirty, there was no b tath, no mini-golf, no swimming r pool, beauty or hairdressing salons, and only occasionally did the meals provide a choice of dishes, most of which, he -com- pJlained, were tainted with the coconut oil used for cooking. After considerable discomfort the family were able to move to the Pegasus for two weeks and com- ':pleted the holiday there. in his action for damages the judge awarded Mr Jackson. one general sum of ?1,100 withput allo- cation to separate heads but made it clear that the award included (a) the difference in value between what Mr Jackson got and what he was led to expect; and (b) com- pensation for disappointment and distress over the loss of entertain- rent, and facilities for enjoyment he had been promised, and for nental stress and vexation. Horizon had refunded ?248' for the difference in status between the two hotels. Mr G. W. Cheyne for Horizon; MIr J. J. Davis for Mr Jackson. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS said that the judge had only assessed the damages on the basis of Mr Jackson's own vexation and the effect on him of his wife's vexation. On the cross-notice in the appeal Mr Davis raised the interesting point that in a case like the present damages coul d be given not only for the distress and vexa- tion of the leader of the party but also for that of the party as a whole. What was the legal position when one person made a contract for the benefit of other parties ? The father was making his own contract for the benefit of the whole family. What then was the position if the other party fell down on the contract ? His Lord- ship had said more than once, as Lord Justice Lush had said in Lloyd's v Harper ((1880) 16 Ch D 290, 321), that it was " an estab- lished rule of law that where a contract is made with A for the benefit of B, A can sue on the. con- tract for the benefit of B, and recover all that B could have recovered if the contract had been made with B himself". That could be applied to a case like the present, where one man contracting for a party could recover damages for the discom- fort, vexation and upset which the whole family suffered. However, the damages were allocated, the court could not say that they were excessive. It was difficult to assess in terms of money the disappointment to a family looking forward to a holi- day and what they had been promised when they discovered what it was really like. The appeal should be dismissed. Lord justice Orr agreed and Lord Justice James delivered a concurring judgment Leave to appeal was refused. Solicitors: Margolis & - Co- Stuart Scott & Co. Father can sue for familv's snoilt holiday Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd