Supreme court overturns TUI verdict

The recent case of TUI Ltd v. Griffiths has brought attention to the question of when a trial judge can rule against a claimant who has not proven their case. This is especially prevalent when the defendant hasn’t challenged the claimant’s expert witness during cross-examination. 

The dispute arose from a family’s all-inclusive holiday to a Turkish resort, during which Mr. Griffiths suffered a severe stomach upset with lasting consequences. Mr. Griffiths sued the travel company, TUI, alleging that the hotel’s food and drink were the likely cause of his ailment. 

At trial, TUI did not cross-examine Professor Pennington, Mr. Griffiths’ expert witness. They also did not present their own expert evidence on causation. Instead, TUI criticised the expert’s report in closing submissions, arguing that it had deficiencies that undermined Mr. Griffiths’ case. 

The trial judge sided with TUI, deeming that Mr. Griffiths had failed to prove causation. However, the high court have overturned this decision. They stated that TUI’s detailed criticisms of Professor Pennington’s report were improperly accepted, denying Mr. Griffiths a fair trial. 

The court of appeal sided with TUI, but the UK supreme court unanimously allowed Mr. Griffith’s appeal. The supreme court emphasised that, in civil cases, a party must challenge the opposing party’s evidence through cross-examination, ensuring fairness to all parties involved. However, the court recognised exceptions where this requirement may be relaxed, emphasising that the overall fairness of the trial is paramount. 

In this case, the court held that fairness demanded TUI to challenge Professor Pennington’s report during cross-examination, or through other means, and TUI’s failure to do so denied Mr. Griffiths a fair trial. The Court also concluded that, considering all the evidence, Mr. Griffiths had indeed shown it was more likely than not that the hotel’s food and drink caused his stomach upset. 

This case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in the justice system, particularly regarding expert witness testimony, and establishes guidelines for when exceptions to the general rule may be applicable. Jatinder Paul, a partner with Irwin Mitchell represented Griffiths in court. 

Image: © claudiodivizia via Canva

Emma Cockings Emma is a content editor for Claims Media. Emma is a experienced writer with a background in client-centric personal injury for a major firm. She has attended and reported on multiple brokerage events throughout her career.