INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TOURISM, TRAVEL AND HOSPITALITY LAW significant pre-departure changes (Article 4.5 PTD). The abandonment of the NWP a few days later was caused by force majeure (an event which could not be foreseen or forestalled even with all due care – Reg ), (Reg 15(2) PTRs, Article 5.2 PTD). This provided a Defence for ROL. Other claims made by the Shermans, alleging that the cruise quality was substandard, the food poor, and the ship ill-chosen for this cruise, were all found to be unjustified by the Judge. The claim was dismissed. It will be noted that this case was subject to the ‘old’ Package Travel Regulations from 1992 (PTD 1990), though I doubt the result would be different under the ‘new’ 2018 PTRs (the product of the ‘new’ PTD EC/2015/2302). New Reg 9 requires that the package organiser should ensure that the information listed in the PTR Schedule is contained in the contract “depending on the nature of the package” and “if relevant”. One of many items listed in the Schedule is ‘the itinerary’. We see this also in the ‘new’ PTD at Article 5(1)(a)(i). So there is no reason to expect any different result from a case under the ‘new’ law. 3. FIRST APPEAL – THE HIGH COURT The Shermans appealed to the High Court, where the Judge (HCJ) took a very different view from that of the CCJ. . The HCJ agreed with the County Court Judge that the PTRs/PTD meant that an itinerary, certainly in the case of a cruise, must be provided before a contract could exist. She however disagreed with the CCJ that the document sent to the Shermans immediately on booking (basic itinerary) had been sufficient to constitute ‘an itinerary’. That requirement was only satisfied 2 weeks later by the detailed itinerary. The HCJ concluded that the PTRs meant that the contract was not fully concluded (no firm booking made) until that itinerary was sent. That detailed itinerary had not been performed and the advance warnings sent by ROL were inadequate in that context. The Shermans were successful in their appeal, and the HCJ sent the case back to the County Court to decide how much money the Shermans were entitled to as a consequence. Now this decision by the HCJ re the contract formation was bad news for the travel industry. Just imagine: the Schedule to the PTRs (or Article 5 of the ‘new’ PTD) contains a whole raft of information which must be
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==