Jackson v Horizon Holidays [1975]
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: Mr. Jackson booked a holiday for himself and his family through Horizon Holidays Ltd. The holiday was to be at the Brown Beach Hotel in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Upon arrival, the facilities were substandard, failing to meet the promised standards, leading to significant disappointment and discomfort for Mr. Jackson and his family. Mr. Jackson sought damages for both the defective performance of the holiday and the mental distress suffered by his family.
Issue: Whether Mr. Jackson could recover damages for the distress experienced by his family, given that the contract was made primarily for their benefit and not directly with them.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the damages awarded to Mr. Jackson, including compensation for the mental distress of his family. Lord Denning MR’s judgment was particularly influential, affirming that damages could indeed be awarded for the distress experienced by third parties for whom the contract was made.
Key Judicial Statement: Lord Denning MR noted that Mr. Jackson had made the contract for the benefit of his family, and thus he could recover damages not only for his own loss but also for the distress suffered by his wife and children. He drew analogies with cases where contracts are made for the benefit of third parties, such as a vicar booking a coach trip for a church choir or a host paying for friends at a restaurant. In these instances, the contracting party can recover damages that include the losses suffered by those third-party beneficiaries.
💡 Leveluplaw: highlights an important development in contract law, particularly concerning the privity doctrine. It illustrates that a contracting party can, in certain circumstances, recover damages for the benefit of third parties for whom the contract was made. Although Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd is often cited in discussions about the limitations of privity of contract, later cases such as Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980] have clarified that this principle should be applied within a more restricted context, primarily involving consumer contracts.