Milner and Milner v Carnival Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 389
Court: Court of Appeal
Facts: Cs booked a 106-day voyage on one of D’s ships 18 months in advance to get a glamorous cabin, paying a discounted price of £59,052. D had set high expectations, with promises of a “legendary” experience that did not match the terrible and stressful experience Cs encountered. On the first night, their cabin was damaged due to storms and began making noises. D offered to move Cs to a new cabin, but Cs refused as it lacked a bath and hanging space for clothes. Unable to handle the noise, Cs disembarked in Hawaii 28 days into the trip and stayed there at their own expense for 6 weeks. They later accepted a refund of £48,270, leaving £10,812 outstanding, but claimed extra pecuniary damages. The judge had rejected their claim for the cost of the return journey because they had unreasonably rejected D’s offer of suitable alternative accommodation. They were awarded a total of £22,000; £2,500 each for the diminution of the cruise value, £7,500 each for their distress and disappointment, and £2,000 for the wasted expenditure of the formal gowns. D appealed against the level of damages awarded to C as a result of their ruined holiday, claiming £2,000 was the correct amount.
Issue: What is the appropriate level of damages and how should this be calculated?
Held: Appeal allowed, damages payable by D were reduced, but not by as much as requested by D.
Key Judicial Statements: Ward LJ stated: “It is trite law that the measure of damages is such compensation as will place the claimants, so far as money can do so, in the same position as they would have been in had the contract been properly performed. The task is to compare and contrast what was promised and what was received, acknowledging that money cannot truly compensate for this deficit” [27]. He further stated: “In approaching the task of assessing damages, I accept that it is permissible to make the assessment under two heads, first the diminution in value and then the distress and disappointment. I do, however, stress that judges should always be alert to ensure that there is no duplication of damages and so it is always salutary to stand back and look at the sum of the two elements in the round before arriving at the figure to award” [42].
💡 Leveluplaw: demonstrates the principles guiding the calculation of damages in cases of contractual breach, emphasizing the need to assess the disparity between promised and delivered services while also cautioning against duplicative awards for different heads of damage.