The fact of the case were that the Claimants (669 members of the Turkish Cypriot community in north London) were introduced to Hudson Morgan Williams through the local community centre; a meeting took place between some of the claimants and the solicitors at the community centre and the CFAs were entered with 669 Claimants. Following default judgment being entered against the airline and subsequently set aside, the airline was ordered to pay the Claimants’ costs.
The Defendant took issue with the fact that the CFAs made did not comply with the Cancellation of Contracts Made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008.
The Defendants point succeeded before the Costs Judge (Master Rowley) but failed before Slade J, sitting with Senior Costs Judge, whose judgment is at [2016] EWHC 1125(QB); [2016] 3 Costs L.O. 365.
Hudson Morgan Williams made a second appeal successfully whereby the Court of Appeal re-interpreted the definition of excursion and the caselaw Travel Vac in light of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December1985 (“the Directive”).
The Court of Appeal overturned the previous judgement and order on the basis that the meeting at the community centre was not an “excursion” for the purposes of regulation 5(b) and the Regulations did not apply.
