Milner v Carnival Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 389 [2010] 3 All ER 70...

Facts

• Mr. and Mrs. Milner booked a 15-night cruise with Carnival Plc.
• Propulsion problems with the cruise ship led to significant alterations of the planned itinerary.
• The claimants experienced disruptions, missed ports, and substitute arrangements that they deemed inferior.
• They claimed damages for breach of contract, centring on the loss of enjoyment and diminished value of their holiday.

Issues

1. Whether damages for breach of contract in holiday cases should be assessed by a strict comparative approach (comparing the actual holiday to a hypothetical alternative), or by evaluating the diminished enjoyment actually suffered.
2. How to quantify non-pecuniary losses, such as disappointment and loss of enjoyment, arising from breaches of holiday contracts.

Decision

• The Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision that had awarded nominal damages based on a hypothetical shorter cruise.
• The Court held that damages should reflect the difference between the value of the holiday as promised and the value as received, taking into account lost amenity and disappointment.
• The Court rejected a purely mathematical comparison and emphasized a broader assessment appropriate to the subjective nature of holiday enjoyment.
• The judgment established that fair compensation requires considering the extent and impact of the disruption rather than merely duration or itinerary changes.

Legal Principles

• Damages in contract law are to place the claimant in the position they would have been in if the contract had been properly performed (restitutio in integrum).
• In holiday contracts, damages for loss of enjoyment are compensable where pleasure, relaxation, or peace of mind is the core purpose of the contract.
• The measure of damages should focus on the actual loss of enjoyment suffered, not on a strict comparison with alternative performances.
• Evidence such as the severity and duration of the breach, and its impact on the holiday experience, guides quantification.
• The Court distinguished claims involving non-pecuniary loss from those where the contract’s primary aim is pecuniary, where traditional market value measures apply.

Conclusion

Milner v Carnival Plc clarified that in holiday contract breaches, damages for loss of enjoyment should be assessed by reference to the actual diminution in value and experience, not by strict mathematical comparison, establishing a fairer framework for compensating disappointed holidaymakers.