TUI UK Ltd (Respondent) v Griffiths (Appellant) [2023] UKSC 48

On Appeal From: [2021] EWCA Civ 1442

Parties Involved

Appellant: Mr. Griffiths
Respondent: TUI UK Ltd

Representation

Justices: Lord Hodge, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens

Hearing Details

The appeal addressed whether a trial judge can disregard an unchallenged expert witness report presented by the claimant in a civil case.

Key Facts

Incident:
- Mr. Griffiths and his family booked an all-inclusive package holiday in Turkey with TUI.
- During the trip, Mr. Griffiths suffered a severe stomach upset, causing long-term health problems.
Trial:
- Mr. Griffiths claimed the illness was caused by food and drink served at the hotel and provided expert evidence from Professor Pennington, who supported this causation.
- TUI did not cross-examine Professor Pennington or provide an alternative expert report but criticized his report in closing submissions.
- The trial judge dismissed the claim, agreeing with TUI’s criticisms of the expert report.
Appeals:
- The High Court allowed Mr. Griffiths’ appeal, but the Court of Appeal reinstated the trial judge’s decision.
- Mr. Griffiths appealed to the Supreme Court.

Main Legal Issues

Issue 1: Can a trial judge reject an expert witness’s report on a central issue without it being cross-examined?

Issue 2: Did Mr. Griffiths provide sufficient evidence to establish causation?

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Mr. Griffiths’ appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in accepting TUI’s criticisms of the unchallenged expert evidence.

Observations and Legal Principles

General Rule in Civil Cases:

Cross-Examination Requirement:
- A party must challenge the evidence of an opposing witness on material points via cross-examination, including expert evidence.
- This ensures fairness by giving the witness an opportunity to clarify or defend their evidence and helps the court assess the evidence properly.
Exceptions to the Rule:
The requirement for cross-examination may be relaxed in limited circumstances, including:
- Insignificant or collateral matters.
- Evidence that is manifestly unbelievable or unsupported by reasoning.
- Situations where the witness has had sufficient opportunities to address criticisms outside of cross-examination.

Application to This Case:

Fair Trial:
- TUI did not cross-examine Professor Pennington or present its own expert evidence.
- Criticisms of the report raised by TUI were not addressed during trial proceedings, denying Mr. Griffiths a fair opportunity to defend his evidence.
- The Supreme Court found the report was not so deficient that it fell within the exceptions to the cross-examination rule.
Causation:
- The evidence, including Professor Pennington’s report and the uncontested facts, sufficiently demonstrated that the food and drink at the hotel were more likely than not the cause of Mr. Griffiths’ illness.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that Mr. Griffiths had proven his case and that the trial judge’s decision to dismiss the claim was incorrect.

Post Views: 12