Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468
Contract – Damages – Breach – Family holiday
Facts:
Mr Jackson booked a holiday through Horizon Holidays, a travel company, for him and his family and paid approximately £1,400. He had provided explicit details about the family’s accommodation, amenity and dietary requirements and preferences, which had been accepted by Horizon. Shortly before their departure, Horizon informed Jackson that the hotel they had booked was now unavailable and provided an alternative for £1,200 which they proposed to be just as good as the hotel that was originally booked. Upon arrival, the Jacksons found that the new hotel was unsatisfactory. This caused them distress, vexation, discomfort and inconvenience. They brought action against Horizon for misrepresentation.
Issues:
Whether damages are recoverable by person making contract to recompense his whole family.
Held:
The appeal by Horizon was dismissed. The Jacksons had made a contract with Horizons for a family holiday and was entitled to recover damages not only for a breach of contract by Horizons, but for the discomfort and distress the breach of contract had caused him. Given that he had booked the holiday for him and his family, Mr Jackson was entitled to also recover damages for the distress and discomfort the breach of contract caused to his wife and children. Horizon had known the holiday was the for family so any breach of contract would foreseeability affect the entire family and not just Mr Jackson who was party to the contract. Therefore, the figure of £1,100 that was awarded in damages on account of Mr Jackson’s claim by the original trial judge, was not considered excessive as it accounted for the distress and discomfort of the whole family.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Jackson v Horizon Holidays Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 1468. However, readers should be aware of two important legal developments that significantly affect the authority and interpretation of this case.
First, the broader common law principle that Mr Jackson could recover damages on behalf of his family members (who were not parties to the contract) was doubted by the House of Lords in Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 277. Their Lordships were generally critical of Lord Denning MR’s reasoning in Jackson insofar as it suggested a general rule permitting a contracting party to recover substantial damages for losses suffered by third parties. The result in Jackson was not disapproved, but it was explained on narrower grounds.
Second, and more importantly for modern law, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 now allows third parties who are expressly identified in a contract, or who belong to a class so identified, to enforce contractual terms in their own right where the contract purports to confer a benefit on them. In a family holiday scenario similar to Jackson, family members may now in some circumstances have a direct right to sue under the 1999 Act, reducing reliance on the Jackson route of the lead contractor recovering on their behalf. The 1999 Act does not render Jackson irrelevant, but students should understand that the legal landscape has changed materially since 1975.
The case also remains a key authority for the recovery of damages for non-pecuniary loss (distress and disappointment) arising from a spoiled holiday, a principle confirmed by the House of Lords in Farley v Skinner [2001] UKHL 49 and reflected in the consumer protections now found in the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (SI 2018/634), which implement EU Directive 2015/2302 and govern modern package holiday contracts in the UK.
