Janice Campbell was a disabled person who booked one of their package holidays. The adjustments she needed were very minor: finding a chair (because her arthritis means she can’t stand for very long); holding a place in a queue; inquiring about accessible taxis (as she finds it hard to get in and out of an ordinary car). Easy things for Thomas Cook to do; difficult for Janice Campbell, if they failed to do them.

Janice Campbell looked up the law and brought her own claim in Sheffield county court. But she came unstuck as a litigant in person when the court held an interlocutory hearing and ordered her to ‘re-particularise’ her case – which left her a bit stumped. It was procedural law, not substantive law, where she needed assistance.

Fortunately when she came to us, we still had a legal aid contract in discrimination cases and could get a legal aid certificate. Today, such advice is restricted to a telephone helpline.

In the meantime, Janice Campbell had issued a second discrimination claim, arising from a second Thomas Cook holiday – booked before her first experience. (She has since taken her custom elsewhere.)

Shortly before the final trial (in the first case), Thomas Cook sought to rely on the Montreal Convention. They argued that no damages should be payable even where the court makes a finding of unlawful discrimination, relying on their earlier success in Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operations. The Montreal Convention harmonises legislation covering international travel. When I was first approached for advice, I did not expect to be dabbling in international law.

Thomas Cook’s application was far too late to be accepted and the trial proceeded. Neither of their witnesses appeared and Janice Campbell’s evidence was complete in 20 minutes.

The real issue in the trial had only emerged in the exchange of skeleton arguments. Thomas Cook advanced an ingenious argument that the Equality Act did not apply because a European regulation ‘governed’ the situation. By Thomas Cook’s arguments, Janice Campbell should be deprived of a remedy because of the interplay of two pieces of legislation designed to outlaw discrimination.

As is often the way with ingenious arguments, they were unsuccessful, but only after our barrister, Catherine Casserley, had made very thorough legal submissions before His Honour Judge Robinson. The judge clearly wanted to give proper consideration to issues where there was simply no previous authority.

Meanwhile in the second case, Thomas Cook resumed their failed argument that the Equality Act did not apply once Janice Campbell had left the shores of England. As we pointed out, this would have allowed them to run racially-segregated buses between airport and hotel with no penalty. The legal point is complex, with questions of statutory interpretation of the extent and application of acts of parliament and the ‘conflict of laws’.

At trial, a district judge found that Thomas Cook had discriminated (again), but accepted their argument that the Equality Act did not apply outside these shores. We obtained ‘wider public interest’ funding to extend the legal aid certificate, and our appeal to the circuit judge was eventually heard by HHJ Robinson, who reversed the district judge.

Soon after this, the Court of Appeal heard Thomas Cook’s appeal on the first case. The court gave their argument short shrift, with Lord Justice Vos endorsing the lower court’s ‘impressive and well-reasoned’ judgment.

Thomas Cook finally threw in the towel and abandoned any further appeals. With a total of £11,567 in compensation (plus costs), they left us with the hope that holiday companies will learn to improve access to services for disabled passengers.

Set against this positive, however, is the reduction in access to justice through cuts in legal aid. Remembering that Janice Campbell first sought legal aid when she came up against procedural difficulties, how will courts ensure litigants are on an equal footing against large companies that can afford to run complicated – if entirely unfounded – defences?