✔ Holiday Illness claims  

✔ Accidents abroad 

✔ Free case assessmnent


 Holiday Claim

If illness on holiday due to hotel food poisoning or an accident due to dangerous hotel premises ruined your package holiday Holiday-Claim.eu can help get you compensation.

Under U.K law your package tour operator is legally responsible for the actions of its hotel abroad and liable to pay you compensation  if your package holiday goes wrong.

For example if you get food poisoning because the food served in hotel restaurant buffet was not cooked or kept at the correct temperature or contaminated due to poor kitchen hygiene then you are entitled to compensation from the tour operator.

We will assess your holiday case for free and if you want to proceed will act on a No Win, No Fee basis so if the claim does not succeed it literally wont cost you anything. All you need to do to make a claim is call one of our operatives on (0800) 1712215 or e-mail gary@holiday-claims.eu with your contact details and we will do the rest.


You can claim:

  •    Loss of enjoyment
  •    Extra hotel stay, flights etc.
  •    Medical expenses 
  •    compensation for time lost/expense of caring for you abroad & back in the U.K
  •    lost wages/profit
  •    damages for symptoms of illness – see how much   – damages for an  illness  on holiday?

We can even help you draft your customer complaint and indeed you will find our help invaluable because:

  • we are experts at drafting complaints
  • we know all the relevant details the tour operator will want to know
  • a badly drafted complaint can undermine a subsequent legal claim (e.g inconsistencies, failing to mention relevant details etc.)
  • our involvement is likely to result in higher offers of compensation than if you try and do it yourself.

Please note that any offers made by the tour operator in response to a customer complaint are likely to be expressed as in “full and final satisfaction” of the claim which means that if accepted the settlement is legally binding and a complete defence should you later change your mind for example because your illness symptoms do not recover as expected and try and bring a claim. For this reason it is essential that you ensure you have proper legal advice right from the beginning or you could end up prejudicing your rights.

 Our promise  

Every day we help holiday makers who suffered holiday illness or injury get compensation against the tour operators who sent them to such terrible hotels. We will calculate how much your claim is worth  and promise to get you the compensation you deserve.

We have a track record of success when it comes to bringing holiday claims and obtaining the maximum compensation for our clients spoilt holidays.


Claimant suffered food poisoning and lost 2.5 st in a month. Claimant had continuing diarrhoea and was subject to several intrusive investigations. 4 years after the poisoning, claimant continued to suffer from loose stools with an indefinite prognosis.
The claimant sustained food poisoning while on holiday abroad. He was incapacitated and passed blood, and his holiday was spoilt, but, with his wife’s assistance, he was able to fly home after 8 days. 3 days after returning, he passed more blood and went to hospital, where he was admitted for 2 nights and given intravenous fluids and antibiotics. He lost 2.5 st in weight over the next month. He suffered continuing diarrhoea and was subject to several intrusive investigations, including a barium enema. He developed a thyroid condition that ultimately proved to be unrelated and largely asymptomatic, but that distracted from his diagnosis and treatment. He was left with post-infective irritable bowel syndrome. His condition stabilised after about a year but, 4 years after the initial event, he continued to suffer from loose stools, requiring several bowel movements a day. He had experienced many accidents at home, and was forced to take Imodium when going out so as to avoid the risk. The claimant was nauseated by the smell of food and unable to cook; he only ate when hungry and did not follow a pattern of regular meals. He was left with considerably less energy than before and had insufficient energy to perform the tasks he had performed previously. His sex life and social life were severely curtailed. He required assistance from his wife with cooking and other domestic tasks for about an hour each day, and would continue to do so well into the future, perhaps indefinitely.



The claimant, H, saw a holiday advertised by the defendant, GP, and his brother made a booking on behalf of himself, H and others. The name of the operator of that holiday, S, was not mentioned at the time. When the holiday documents arrived, they were headed with ‘Going Places Direct’, and S was named as the operator. H and his brother claimed that they did not notice the reference to S and thought, in light of the heading, that they were dealing directly with GP. The tickets were collected from S’s desk, which was when H alleged that he first realised that he was dealing with S. The holiday went ahead as planned, but on the return flight, the aircraft was forced to make an emergency landing. H left by a chute which descended to ground level. As he came down the chute, he collided with a large woman who had became stuck at the bottom. Another of his party collided with him, and her feet struck him squarely in the back, winding him. He managed to climb over the stuck woman and helped her free of the chute, injuring his back again. H brought proceedings against GP, claiming for losses and damages arising from his injuries. H submitted that under reg 15 of the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992, GP was liable for all loses arising from the improper performance of the contract for the holiday. Regulation 15(1) made the other party to the holiday contract liable to the consumer for the proper performance of that contract. He alleged, inter alia, that there had been insufficient trained personnel present at the top and bottom of the chute. H adduced no evidence as to the number of staff on board and no expert evidence on the duties of cabin crew staff in such an emergency, but submitted that it was a matter of common sense that good airline practice had been breached. GP contended that it was not liable under the regulations as H’s brother had contracted with S, and that it any event H had not established that anyone had been at fault for his injuries.

The claim would be dismissed.

On a true construction of reg 15 of the regulations, a package holiday retailer was not liable for the performance of the contract for the holiday unless that retailer was acting for an undisclosed principle or provided the package holiday on its own or jointly with another operator. In the circumstances, as GP had not disclosed that S was the operator until the contract had been concluded, GP had been acting for an undisclosed principle and thus the regulations applied. On the evidence, however, the claimant had failed to establish that his injuries were anyone’s fault. When dealing with allegations that the flight had been understaffed, it was not sufficient to look at the matter on the basis of common sense. Evidence establishing a breach of good airline practice was required. Accordingly, as H had not adduced any such evidence, he had not established his case.

Case study

Conflict of laws – Jurisdiction – Challenge to jurisdiction – Civil and commercial matters – Claimant British national injured in Spain – Claimant’s colleague bringing action under identical facts in Spain against Spanish hotel operator – Claimant bringing action in England against English tour company and Spanish hotel operator – Spanish defendant disputing English jurisdiction – Spanish defendant relying on paragraph in European Court decision – Whether decision binding – Whether reference to Europe appropriate – Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968, arts 2, 6(1).

The court ruled:

Although the paragraph of the European Court’s judgment upon which Aparta relied was undoubtedly clear, the full implications of the position there set out might possibly not have been considered by the court. It led, from a national point of view, to arbitrary distinctions, if it were to be understood as laying down a strict rule according to the legal basis of the respective claims. But for what the European Court had said, it would have been held that the fact that one claim was based on contract and the other on tort was, at most, only one factor to be considered in deciding whether the connection shown between different claims by one claimant against two or more defendants was sufficient, on the basis of whether it was expedient to allow the claims to be joined in order to avoid irreconcilable judgments. Accordingly, the court required guidance from the European Court of Justice before determining the appeal, as to whether the fact that one claim related to contract and the other to tort, delict or quasi-delict was no more than one of the factors to be taken into account by the national court in deciding whether a sufficient connection existed between the respective claims to justify adding as a party to proceedings brought in one contracting state against a party domiciled in that state, another party domiciled in a different contracting state. The questions to be referred were: ‘(1) Is there a connection between claims which is sufficient to justify the application of art 6(1) of the Convention only where the risk of irreconcilable judgments can be avoided altogether, or may it exist where it is possible by means of art 6(1) to avoid that risk as regards judgments affecting the parties to the proceedings to which art 6(1) would apply although some risk of irreconcilable judgments would remain as between those proceedings, on the one hand, and a claim or claims involving one or some of those parties and one or more other parties, on the other hand? (2) May a connection between claims which is sufficient to justify the application of art 6(1) exist where the risk of irreconcilable judgments arises from possible inconsistent findings of fact, or can it only be based on possible incompatible holdings of law? (3) If proceedings have been brought in the courts of a contracting state against a defendant domiciled in that state for a claim in a matter relating to contract, does art 6(1) permit the claimant to join as an additional defendant a person domiciled in another contracting state against whom his claim amounts to a matter relating tort, delict or quasi-delict and not a matter relating to contract, where (unless such a conclusion is precluded by the different legal nature of the two claims) the national court is satisfied that the connection between the claims against the two defendants is of such a kind that it is expedient to determine the claims together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings? (4) May the claimant join the second defendant in reliance on art 6(1) in the circumstances described in question (3) above, where (a) the first claim is under a contract for a package holiday under which the first defendant, the organiser or provider of the holiday, accepts responsibility for bodily injury to the claimant caused by negligent acts or omissions of its agents, suppliers and sub-contractors and their servants and agents whilst in the course of their employment, and (b) the second claim is a claim in the tort of negligence against the second defendant, who is one of the first defendant’s agents, suppliers or sub-contractors, and the claim is based upon the negligence of one or more of the second defendant’s employees or agents in the course of their employment?’