0370 270 6000

Mawdsley v Cosmos Air Plc

23 April 2002
The issues

Holidays – Package Holidays and Package Tour Regulations 1992 – stairs.

The facts

The Claimant booked a holiday in Turkey from Cosmos. She and her husband were going down stairs carrying their daughter in a pushchair, when she fell. It appeared that she lost her footing. No exact cause was established. The Claimant argued that Cosmos was liable for the injuries on the basis that the brochure stated that the hotel restaurant was accessible via a lift. It was not. Further, the brochure said the hotel was suitable for children. Claimant said it was not. A breach of duty under Regulation 4 of the Package, Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tour Regulations 1992 was alleged. In addition, the Claimant sued in misrepresentation and for breach of contract. Cosmos argued that it was not reasonably foreseeable that personal injuries would come from merely descending stairs, about which there was nothing dangerous in themselves. The Judge at first instance found that the hotel was unsuitable for children because there was so many steps that would be needed to descend or climb in order to get to the restaurant. He found that it was foreseeable that the Claimant would lose her footing whilst descending the stairs two or three times a day carrying a child’s pushchair. He found it reasonable for the Claimant to assume that the phrase “lifts (in main building)” in the brochure implied access to everything including the restaurant.

The Defendant appealed.

The decision

1. The Judge’s interpretation of the phrase in the brochure was correct.

2. His conclusion that because there was no lift, it was therefore unsuitable for young children was wrong.

3. The Judge had been correct to find that there was no intervening causative act in that the Claimant could not be said to have conducted herself unreasonably or negligently.

4. There was a sufficient link between the fact that the restaurant had been misrepresented as accessible by lift and the fact that that misrepresentation caused the accident. The Judge’s conclusion that there was a causal connection was correct.

Appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up