KA-2024-BHM-000008 - [2025] EWHC 2093 (KB)

The evidence and the judge’s findings that are relevant to the causation issue

As I have already said, though a finding that the pathogen that had been ingested by the Appellant was cyclospora would almost certainly have resulted in victory for the Appellant in these proceedings, a finding that the Appellant’s symptoms were caused by another pathogen was not fatal to her claim. It was still open to her to persuade the judge, on the balance of probabilities, that the other pathogen had been ingested from food and drink that she consumed at the hotel (especially as the judge found that the Appellant had not fallen ill before she went to Mexico).

The judge’s findings about the hotel, and about what the Appellant did whilst she was there

I have already referred to the symptoms suffered by the Appellant.

The Rui Vallarta hotel is a big and busy hotel (in fact, though the judge did not give the figure, it was not in dispute that it had 678 rooms). It serves about 1,200 guests per day and had a 95% occupancy rate. There are four restaurants, two buffet-style and two a la carte. A large quantity of food and drink is provided both to all-inclusive residents and to non-residents.

The Appellant arrived at the hotel at about 4.30 pm on 8 July 2016. It was an all-inclusive holiday. The judge found that the Appellant fell ill at about 5pm on 11 July 2016, and so about three days into her holiday. She had eaten a buffet meal on the evening of 8 July, and breakfast in the buffet the following morning, consisting of a boiled egg, toast and tea. For lunch, she had a buffet meal in the beach restaurant café, and that evening she had a well-done steak in the beef restaurant. The buffets were standard buffet meals, with the guests helping themselves as they wished to food that was put out for them. Nothing was cooked to order or in front of the Appellant. Birds would try to take food left by guests on tables, or scraps of food that had been dropped. But birds were not seen on the buffet itself.

The Appellant used the swimming pool one day, swimming with her head and hair out of the water. She also waded into the sea up to her knees, but no further.

After she fell ill on 11 July, the Appellant did not leave her room on 12 July. The Appellant was able to participate in a number of excursions whilst on holiday, after she had first fallen ill. On 13 July, the Appellant went on a 4-hour excursion to a local village. On 16 July, the Appellant went on another excursion, a six hour round trip. She was able to swim to a small pontoon off the shore. On 19 July, the Appellant went to a dolphinarium. She went into the water but steered clear of the dolphins, as she was scared of them. That trip lasted 3 hours.

The judge said that the Appellant made no complaints about food hygiene in resort or in her initial complaint.