Rawson v TUI UK Ltd: High Court dismisses holiday food poisoning appeal

The High Court of Justice's King's Bench Division has delivered a significant judgement in Hannah Louise Rawson v TUI U.K. Ltd, reinforcing the evidential requirements necessary to establish causation in holiday illness claims. The judgement, handed down on 12 August 2025, dismissed Rawson's appeal against an earlier decision that rejected her claim for food poisoning contracted during a package holiday.

Background and initial proceedings

Rawson's claim arose from a July 2016 holiday to the Rui Vallarta hotel in Mexico, an all-inclusive resort booked through TUI. She developed severe gastrointestinal distress shortly after arrival, which persisted throughout her stay. Upon returning to the UK, medical examination revealed gastroenteritis, subsequently developing into post-infective irritable bowel syndrome. Rawson attributed her condition to contaminated food or drink consumed at the hotel.

The initial trial judge dismissed the claim, finding insufficient evidence to establish that the illness originated from the hotel's food or beverage services. The case was complicated by conflicting expert evidence: whilst a regional laboratory detected cyclospora—a pathogen associated with foodborne illness—a national laboratory found no evidence of the organism in subsequent analyses.

Appeal grounds and judicial analysis

Before Mr Justice Cavanagh, the appeal focused on the trial judge's treatment of expert evidence and the application of causation principles in holiday illness cases. The appellant contended that the initial judge had misunderstood key evidence regarding pathogen transmission and had inappropriately weighted conflicting expert testimonies.

Justice Cavanagh conducted a thorough review of the evidential basis, particularly examining the reliability of competing expert opinions. He noted the inherent difficulty in establishing precise causation in foodborne illness cases, emphasising that the burden of proof remained with the claimant to demonstrate that the illness resulted from the service provider's failure to meet requisite food safety standards.

Key findings and reasoning

The Court of Appeal upheld the original decision, identifying several factors that undermined the appellant's case. Significantly, no other guests reported similar illnesses during the relevant period, suggesting the absence of a systemic hygiene failure. The respondent's expert evidence demonstrated multiple potential contamination sources beyond the hotel's food preparation and service areas.

Justice Cavanagh reinforced that even hotels maintaining appropriate hygiene standards cannot eliminate all external contamination risks. The judgement emphasised the distinction between establishing that an illness occurred during a holiday and proving that it resulted from the tour operator's breach of contractual obligations regarding food safety standards.

The decision clarifies the evidential threshold required in package holiday claims involving alleged foodborne illness. Courts will require robust evidence linking the illness directly to failures in the tour operator's duty of care, rather than mere temporal correlation between the holiday and the onset of symptoms.

Implications for practice

This judgement strengthens the position of tour operators in defending against speculative illness claims whilst maintaining consumer protection where genuine breaches can be established. The case demonstrates the critical importance of comprehensive expert evidence and thorough investigation of alternative causation theories.

Permission to appeal was granted but ultimately unsuccessful, establishing a precedent that may influence similar claims against major tour operators. The decision reinforces judicial scrutiny of expert evidence in personal injury claims and the necessity of establishing clear causal links between alleged breaches and resulting harm.

Rawson v TUI U.K. Ltd serves as a reminder of the complex evidential challenges inherent in holiday illness litigation and the courts' commitment to rigorous causation analysis in consumer protection cases.