Tourism Law in Europe

is complicated by two diametrically opposed first instant decisions, both reported in the Lloyds Law Reports in 2004. No resolution between the two has yet been found. In Lee v Airtours [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 683 the Claimant booked a cruise holiday with the Defendant tour operator. On the eighth day of the voyage a fire broke out aboard the vessel. The passengers and crew boarded lifeboats and the ship sank with most of the Claimant’s luggage on board. The Claimant relied exclusively on Regulation 15 of the 1992 Regulations, and sought damages for psychiatric injury, loss of her possessions and loss of enjoyment of the Holiday. The Defendant accepted that there had been an ‘improper performance’ of the contract but argued that its liability was limited pursuant to Articles 7 and 8 of the Athens Convention. It contended that the Convention applied as a matter of law save to the extent that it was expressly ousted by the Regulations. HHJ Hallgarten QC rejected the Defendant’s arguments. He held that irrespective of the ‘exclusivity’ provided by Article 14, the Regulations provided an alternative regime which, in so far as it conflicted with UK domestic law must, pursuant to the European Communities Act 1972, prevail. In Norfolk v MyTravel [2004] 1 Lloyds Rep 106 the Defendant tour operator provided a package holiday comprising a sea cruise sailing from Palma. The Claimant was injured when she slipped on water on the floor of a lift on board. She issued a claim pursuant to Regulation 15 of the Regulations. The Defendant contended that the Claimant was issued out of time, since pursuant to Article 16 of the Athens Convention claims for damages for personal injury become time-barred after a period of two years from the date of disembarkation. If the Regulations applied, the three year period under the Limitation Act 1980 could be relied upon, and the claim would have been brought in time. HHJ Overend concluded that the time limit in the Athens Convention applied and the Claim was dismissed. He relied on the decision in Sidhu v British Airways ; the purpose of both the Montreal and the Athens international conventions was to create a uniform international code which could be applied by the courts of all the high contracting parties without reference to the rules of their own domestic law. If the Convention was applicable only in circumstances where there had been an express reference in the contract, rather than the Convention applying as a matter of law, the draughtsmen would and should have said so in clear terms. The judge concluded that the fact that the Regulations flow from a