Scenic Tours case off to High Court

[MicCanberra]

That doesn't mean they cannot go to court or that the judges decision is assured.

[GUT2407]

The appeal is on four points of law, I’ve been told that, subject to the amended appeal, the High Court was interested in one ground, effectively does the Civil Liabilities Act apply to damages for disappointment and distress, it seems to be accepted that damages are available for that head of damages Baltic Shipping Co v Dillon found that damages for disappointment and distress are recoverable for breach of contract if the object of the contract is to provide enjoyment, relaxation or freedom from molestation. It was agreed by both sides (in the Court of appeal) that Distress and Dissapointment was a form of personal injury. The relevance is that if the Civil Liabilities Act applies you need to suffer a 15% whole body loss to recover and that is a huge hurdle and currently looks to be the issue the High Court will decide.

 

 

[GUT2407]

And in my opinion the concession that Distress and disappointment was a form of personal injury was wrongly made.

[MicCanberra]

I agree, but as with most court cases, it is always about what is legally right, not so much about morally or ethically right or even justice.

[The_Big_M]

Except that it often comes down to interpretation as you don't have laws about right and wrong for every conceivable scenario.

[By The Bay]

A win for the little man over Scenic in the High Court for disappointment. Link to ABC report

[MMDown Under]

On 5/27/2019 at 9:08 AM, GUT2407 said:

I think the big issue is failing to give notice so people could decide to cancel. Same issue as the Aussie cruise that went south instead of north when the cyclone blew up.

Also not letting passengers, who contacted them prior to the cruise, cancel.  

[MMDown Under]

1 hour ago, By The Bay said:

A win for the little man over Scenic in the High Court for disappointment. Link to ABC report

At last!  It has been a long haul. I have followed this case from inception.

Scenic displayed arrogance against the rights of passengers to experience the cruise they paid for. 

[pully8]

Agree.

We have done many European river cruises albeit not with scenic, however people we know have and liked the experience.

However we have had the uncertainty and frustration related to low/high water and low/no timely info from the travel providers.

Have read many of the cases on line available www.austlii.edu.au/  just put any provider of interest into the search area.

Terrible reports of distress and multiple appeals. These are expensive trips for many and not unreasonable to expect an experience/treatment to match.

When things go well wonderful but its how the company deals with issues that is important. Buyer beware.

Mind you would love to go anywhere at present. 

[bvm49]

On 4/24/2020 at 2:38 PM, By The Bay said:

A win for the little man over Scenic in the High Court for disappointment. Link to ABC report

By the Bay: thanks for the update.

I've been following this case for years and was disappointed when the appeal court reversed the original decision regards the compensation (on top of a refund). At the time, this flood cancelled several cruises in a row and most companies offered refunds; whereas Scenic demanded that people had to take "their bus tour". Also they didn't notify passengers before they left Australia so people could try to cancel from home.

I'm so pleased the high court reinstated the original verdict - a case of David beating Goliath.

We've done one European 14 night river cruise with Gate 1 which was half the price of Scenic - should have been on another one with them at present😞.

Brian  

[MicCanberra]

Agreed, options should be provided when a service or product cannot be delivered as advertised, as to allow people to make a choice that suits them best.