Yorkshire holidaymaker loses three-year fight over his injury in hotel fall

John Harrison was told by a High Court judge that his appeal against a decision made in 2019, which stated his case had not been proven, had no “no realistic prospect of success”.

Mr Harrison claims he fell from a path outside a hotel’s emergency exit in Portugal in June 2014 after he decided to go for a walk while his wife went up to their room.

According to Mr Harrison, he tumbled down a rockery from a height of around two metres and landed in the road.

He was bleeding and his glasses were smashed when he was found, still in the road, by a security guard shortly after 11.40pm.

He attempted to sue Tui – the company that sold him the holiday – claiming it was liable because there was no handrail by the path and this was a clear hazard.

Shortly after the incident, the hotel installed a fence and handrail outside the exit.

At a hearing at Sheffield County Court in November 2019, the judge, Recorder Cameron, ruled against him and claimed his case had not been proven. The judge said there was “very limited evidence”, as Mr Harrison could not recall the events leading up to the fall and “no one else saw what happened”.

The judge also said there was evidence which “equally” suggests Mr Harrison did not use the emergency exit and he fell while he was walking along the road.

He said evidence given by the man’s wife was truthful and accurate but she did not witness the fall or the events leading up to it.

Mr Harrison’s legal team appealed against the decision, claiming there was a third potential scenario – that he may have fallen after walking up to the emergency door andattempting to open it from the outside.

The team highlighted the fact that blood and fragments of Mr Harrison’s broken glasses were found in a drain in the road, near the emergency exit.

But the judge dismissed theclaim and said the evidence was “at least equally consistent with Mr Harrison simply falling while walking along the service road and not falling from the door or the path at all".

His legal team, from Slater and Gordon, asked for permission to appeal in the High Court but the request was refused by Mr Justice Fordham following a hearing this week. They claimed the judge in the original case had failed to take into account and effectively analyse all the available evidence.

In the ruling, Mr Justice Fordham said he could “see no arguableerror of approach” taken by the judge in the original case andthe appeal judge was “entitled to form that view of the evidence”.

He added: “I can find in thepoints advanced on behalf of the appellant, viewed individually and viewed in combination, no arguable appeal with a realistic prospect of success.

"In those circumstances I will refuse the renewed application for permission to appeal.”