New employment cases: package holidays and disability discrimination
Package holiday contracts
Case X v Kuoni Travel Ltd  UKSC 34, Supreme Court
Facts Ms X was on a package tour in Sri Lanka organised by Kuoni. She was raped and assaulted at her hotel by an electrician employed at the hotel. She claimed compensation from Kuoni. The claim was struck out by the High Court and her appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. She appealed to the Supreme Court. The case was referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Decision 1. The appeal was allowed.
2. The obligations owed by tour operators to consumers under package holiday contracts include not only the provision of transport, accommodation and meals, but also a range of ancillary services which are necessary for the provision of a holiday of a reasonable standard.
3. The rape and assault of Ms X amounted to a failure to provide hotel services with proper care.
Case Elliott v Dorset County Council UKEAT/0197/20/LA
Facts E was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by his employer. He was assessed to establish whether he was on the autistic spectrum. This was confirmed. In ET proceedings a preliminary hearing was held to decide whether E was a disabled person. The ET found that his impairment did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities. He was not a disabled person. E appealed to the EAT.
Decision 1. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to a fresh ET for full reconsideration.
2. The ET had not sufficiently identified the relevant day-to-day activities.
3. The ET had excessively focused on coping strategies or W making reasonable adjustments for himself.
4. The ET had excessively relied on a comparison of E with the general population rather than properly applying the statutory definition of “substantial” as more than minor or trivial.