Holiday Sickness Backlash: Law Firm takes on Popular Travel Company
posted on Apr 27, 2018
Legal Futures has reported that after a law firm took on a popular travel company, the company reacted. The travel company, namely TUI, accused them of unethical actions. Not only his but possibly illegal actions as well. They claimed that the individual represented by the law firms company is in partnership with the AMS law firm. They claimed that “This is probably just the tip of the iceberg and there’s little doubt that there will be many more cases where he has done this. “ Furthermore, they stated to have informed the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the General Medical School as well as the court about their concerns. The firm responded saying that the relevant AMS partner, ‘did not deal with the case.”
Holiday Sickness Claim Controversy
Controversy concerning holiday claims and holiday sickness claims in the United Kingdom is not something new. In fact, BBC reported that “there were about 35000 claims over holiday sickness in 2016, a 500% rise since 2013.”. Furthermore, “the total cost of all claims was £240m in 2016 and the growth in cases risked raising holiday prices for all,”. This led the UK government to crackdown on all false holiday injury claims. Specific examples of this include Jade Mozuka and Leon Roberts. The Guardian newspaper reported that the court charged them with "suspended jail sentences". These charges were due to false holiday sickness claims. This was made clear by photographs the couple posted on social media. These proved that the sickness claim was, in fact, fraudulent.
Of course, in the case of the travel company, the claim is not necessarily fraudulent. Perhaps, it is rather a conflict of interest. Therefore, it is difficult to come to a conclusion as to whether the law firm should, in fact, admit fault.
What Is Your Opinion on this Case?
It does seem that the travel company is perhaps correct in saying that there is a conflict of interest on part of the law firm. Of course, there does not seem to be any sure evidence of illegality. In fact, the partnership does not take away the original claims allegations. Although, perhaps it was not wise of the individuals laying the holiday sickness claim to risk the validity of the case. They risked it by doing so through a law firm that some may view as a type of conflict of interest. This decision seems even riskier given the current attitude of the government against possible false claimants and claims.