Boodle Hatfield advises client on claim against Le Manoir au Quat'Saisons
Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons offers £100 compensation for $60,000 robbery.
Critically acclaimed restaurateur Raymond Blanc's Le Manoir aux Quat'Saisons has settled a court case brought by two guests who had more than $100,000 stolen from their room at his flagship restaurant and country house hotel in Oxfordshire.
Mr and Mrs Donaldson, from Florida in the USA, brought the case when Le Manoir's parent company offered just £100 ($185) claiming protection under the 1956 Hotel Proprietors Act.
The burglary took place in March 2005 with cash, jewellery and passports being stolen from the Donaldsons' room, including a number of items with sentimental value. The police managed to apprehend the burglar but only recovered valuables worth around $40,000.
The Donaldsons assumed and requested that Le Manoir reimburse them for their remaining loss of $60,000. Le Manoir's parent company responded with a cheque for just £100 ($185) in compensation claiming the protection of the Hotel Proprietors Act 1956 to limit their liability.
Mr and Mrs Donaldson instructed Tim Maxwell and Simon Fitzpatrick of London law firm Boodle Hatfield to obtain reimbursement of their loss. Simon Fitzpatrick said: “The hotel tried to rely on the 1956 Hotel Proprietors Act which limits a hotel's liability for loss, damage or theft from a hotel room to just £50 for one item or £100 for multiple items on correct display of the notice stipulated by the Act.”
Mr Donaldson said: “While the break-in was unfortunate, my wife and I understand that sometimes these things happen. However what was distressing was the turnabout in attitude from Raymond Blanc and his staff. “Whilst at their establishment, the staff and Mr Blanc were all very helpful and supportive and we were not anticipating any problems. Mr Blanc encouraged us to provide his insurance company with a list of stolen items at our earliest convenience. After doing so, we were understandably upset to receive a letter from their parent company offering just $185 in compensation. Having spent upwards of $100,000 over the past ten years staying at Le Manoir we mistakenly considered ourselves valued customers.”
During the course of Boodle Hatfield's investigation it became apparent that there are a number of pitfalls for a hotel attempting to rely on the Hotel Proprietors Act, particularly as the majority of the cases illustrating the law are centuries old. There are requirements, seemingly inconsistent with today's notion of fairness, whereby the notice must be completely correct otherwise it is not worth the paper it is written on. There are also very specific requirements as to the location and manner of exhibition of the notice.
In January a claim was issued on the grounds of breach of contract, breach of tortious duty and under the Hotel Proprietors Act. This alleged that Le Manoir had failed to fulfil its contractual duty to use reasonable care and skill in providing hotel accommodation including the preservation of the safety of their guests and property during their stay, had breached their duty to provide for the safety and security of their guests, and had failed to comply with the requirements of the Hotel Proprietors Act 1956. Le Manoir subsequently reached an out of court settlement with the Donaldsons for the full amount claimed, rubber-stamped by the High Court in June this year.
The case has clear ramifications for hotel proprietors says Tim Maxwell, a solicitor at Boodle Hatfield: “If hotel owners and proprietors wish to rely on the Act they need to take extra care in the wording and location of their notice to ensure it operates to limit their liability. It is not always appreciated what the implications of this notice are and one small mistake can prove expensive. We would recommend that hotels regularly review the position and wording of this notice.” The case will also serve as a timely reminder to hotel guests. “Even though this Act is 50 years old, hotel guests cannot assume that their personal belongings are safe and covered by the hotel's own insurance policies, even if they are locked in a safe in their room,” says Fitzpatrick.
Whilst the Act and the facts of the case did not come under Court scrutiny as settlement was reached prior to a Court hearing, it does raise questions as to whether the 1956 Act needs revisiting. “Fifty years ago £100 was worth a lot more than in 2006. When the limits were first discussed in Parliament in 1956 there were concerns that they were too low, and in London an Act has been passed which increases the limit of liability to £750 for one item and £1,500 for multiple items. The Act, whilst little used, is probably in need of updating,” concludes Maxwell.
July 2006
*Design and technology by Precedent