Box Legal Logo
Home > ATE Caselaw > Griffiths V TUI UK Limited (2021)

Griffiths V TUI UK Limited (2021)

Griffiths V TUI UK Limited (2021)


The claimant, Mr Griffiths stayed at an all-inclusive Turkish resort for a two week holiday with his wife and son commencing on 2 August 2014.  The claimant brought a claim against the tour operator TUI under the Package Travel Regulations for personal injury on the basis that he had suffered a gastric-intestinal illness.

The Issues

In the decision handed down by the High Court last year, Spencer J held that provided an expert report complied with the CPR Part 35 and there was no evidence to challenge that evidence, if the report could not be factually undermined in cross-examination, then that report should be accepted by the court.


In the Court of Appeal decision, Lady Justice Asplin stated that there was no rule that an expert’s report which is uncontroverted, and which complies with Part 35 CPR cannot be challenged in submissions and thereafter rejected by the judge.  She also stated that it was permissible to challenge expert evidence in closing submissions.

Asplin LJ said that the court was not a ‘rubber stamp’ for expert evidence and there was nothing inherently unfair in seeking to challenge such evidence at the close of a trial.

Bean LJ in his contested judgement said that the claimant did not have a fair trial of his claim and he would have dismissed TUI’s appeal.  He added that “Mr Griffiths must be wondering what he did wrong.  He instructed a leading firm of personal injury solicitors, who in turn instructed an eminent microbiologist whose integrity has not been questioned”.


The result of the Court of Appeal’s decision is favourable for Defendants in gastric illness claims, and arguably in any other claims which rely on expert evidence.  Following this judgement, Defendants will be able to challenge claimants’ expert evidence at trial without obtaining their own evidence, and therefore Claimants must take extra care when submitting their expert evidence, even if they are aware that the Defendant will not be calling their own expert evidence.

The full judgement can be found here

< Back to case list

We use cookies to improve your experience of our website. Click here to read more.