CAWANGAN PULAU PINANG

(KAMPUS PERMATANG PAUH)

HM110 – FACULTY OF HOTEL MANAGEMENT

LAW277

INTRODUCTION TO HOSPITALITY AND TRAVEL LAW

CASE REVIEW

(Constantine v. Imperial London Hotels Ltd.)

No. NAME STUDENT ID CLASS

1. NURASMIRA AZIZAN 2021612926 PHM1103C2
2. NURUL ELLISA BINTI NOR ISAM 2021626098 PHM1103C2
3. NUR ALYAA BINTI YUSELMAN 2021828362 PHM1103C2
4. NUR ALIA MAISARAH BINTI YAZID 2021846236 PHM1103C1
ALTUHAMI

PREPARED FOR:

DR NOOR ASHIKIN BASARUDIN

SUBMISSION DATE:

14 February 2023

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

No. CONTENTS PAGE

1. FACTS OF THE CASE 3

2. ISSUES 4

3. JUDGEMENT 4-5

4. RELATED CASE LAW 5-7

5. CASE COMMENT b 7-8

6. REFERENCES 9

2
FACTS OF THE CASE

Based on Innkeepers Act 1952, inn was defined as any hotel, boarding-house or other place
where a person is harbored or lodged for any kind whatsoever of hire or reward and where
domestic service whatsoever is rendered by the owner, lessee, principal tenant, occupier or
manager to the person so harbored or lodged, licensed under any written law for the time
being in forced in West Malaysia. Innkeeper means the keeper of any such inn and includes
a company or corporation. While guest is a traveler who has engaged a sleeping
accommodation at the inn and the traveler is a person who make use of the services
available at the inn and willing to pay sum of money. It is generally acceptable that innkeeper
is the person who owned the inn and run the business of the hotel. Generally, the legal
duties of the innkeepers in Malaysia are governed by the common law but the Act only
provides the limitations of innkeepers’ liability.

The case of Constantine v. Imperial London Hotels Ltd (1944) is all about the plaintiff,
Constantine, who is a West Indian cricketer, he had been refused as a guest at the Imperial
London Hotel because of his color as he is black. He had travelled to London to represent
the Dominions against England at Lord’s. He had previously reserved rooms for his family
and him at the Imperial Hotel located in London but the hotel has assured them that
Constantine and his family would be welcomed and treated with all due respect. But
everything changed when Constantine and his family have arrived at the hotel. Imperial
London Hotel refused their stay and stated that Constantine and his family could only remain
for one night. This is because there are the White American Military personnel sleeping there
so they raised concerns and objections to their presence.

Not only that, the receptionist proclaimed arrogantly that the hotel could not have niggers as
their guest because they were Americans sleeping there. But then, the innkeeper has
offered him and his family to accommodate them at Bedford Hotel. Constantine was
outraged, humiliated and offended since those people in the hotel considered them as
outsiders and not accepting them as a guest in the hotel. After the incident has happened,
Constantine filled a court lawsuit alleging that the hotel has breached the contract and
committed a tort, based on the common law idea that innkeepers should not refuse tourist a
room without any justifications also as a traveler, he has been discriminate based on race
and his skin color.

3
ISSUES:

a) Whether Constantine deserves a compensation from Imperial London Hotel or not?

b) Whether Constantine get the right to defend his race and skin color in a foreign
country or not?

JUDGEMENT

Mr Justice Birkett held that a right of Constantine had been violated. It was accepted that an
innkeeper had a duty to provide reasonable accommodation and rejected the contention that
when the hotel offered to lodge Constantine elsewhere, it was fulfilling that duty.
Furthermore, even though Constantine suffered no pecuniary damage, the violation of the
right was in principle capable of justifying a remedy. He was awarded the small sum of five
guineas in damages.

Before I come to Mr. Slade's main legal proposal, I should perhaps refer to another
statement of his: When Mr. Constantine left the Imperial Hotel that evening and went to the
Bedford Hotel and was received and accommodated there, the defendants were in the same
situation as if he had been admitted and accommodated at the Imperial Hotel and that there
would therefore be no refusal on which Mr. Constantine could rely. I reject this. Aside from
the fact that the two hotels were owned by the same owner, no further evidence of a
connection and the circumstances under which Mr Constantine moved into the Bedford
Hotel has been adduced to enable it to be concluded that the defendants had not refused to
receive and welcome Mr. Constantine.

In my opinion, the traveller has the right to choose the hotel he wants to be requested to,
and the defendants have no right to dependent the traveller who wants to use their hotel to
the trouble and expense of finding another hotel. the innkeeper's only obligation was to
provide decent accommodation and the defendants questionable through Mr Slade, that they
had fulfilled their duty by offering accommodation at the Bedford Hotel. I cannot accept this
point of view. The argument before me is that the defendants refused to receive and
accommodate Mr. Constantine at the Imperial Hotel and I believe that is no other answer
than Mr. Constantine. Constantine went to the Bedford Hotel in protest.

4
The constant need to determine whether the alleged damage was a direct result of the
defendant's action had familiarized judges with a relatively current understanding of the
concept of negligence, but if the general rule was that damage was the focus of the action,
and though there's no doubt the action before me is the case.

Related case laws

Trespassing violates the owner's legal right to privacy, and as a result, the offender is
entitled to restitution from the court. In the case of Sain Dass v. Ujagar Singh, it was decided
that nominal damages are regularly awarded and that the concept of Injuria Sine only
applies to immovable property if someone is holding someone else's property unfairly or
illegally.

Injuria Sine Damnum was a legal principle applied to several cases, most notably Ashby v.
White. Mr. Ashby, the complainant, was a qualified voter who was wrongfully denied the right
to cast a ballot in the British Parliamentary election by the defendant William White, one of
the returning officers, on the grounds that the plaintiff was not a permanent resident of the
nation and had never assisted the poor or given any offering in the church. As a result, the
plaintiff filed a lawsuit. While the defendant, William White, a returning officer, unfairly denied
the plaintiff, Mr. Ashby, the opportunity to vote, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in a court of law.
The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff after concluding that his legal rights had been
breached.

The plaintiff, a West Indian cricket player, filed a complaint stating that the hotel was in
violation of contract in the current case of Constantine v. Imperial London Hotel Ltd., which
was also featured. Because there was an infringement of the plaintiff's legal rights, even if
there was no financial loss or physical harm, the plaintiff in this case was still given a minor
damage award. After carefully examining the entire idea, the researcher came to the
conclusion that if someone's legal rights are violated or a tortious act is committed, the
plaintiff has the right to file a lawsuit and demand compensation.

5
In another case, Bhim Singh v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, the plaintiff, Mr. Bhim
Singh, claimed that his absolute right to privacy had been violated when he was purposefully
prevented from attending a legislative assembly session, endangering his personal liberty.
Mr. Bhim Singh, the plaintiff, was unlawfully detained from attending a legislative assembly
session, intercepted by police while end route, imprisoned, and held in a secret location.
This intentional interference with his right to absolute privacy resulted in harm to Mr. Singh.

The case in Nixon v. Herndon, the Supreme Court stated that the case involved a plaintiff's
private harm for which a legal remedy was available. Nixon was a native of Texas and the
United States. He came from an African American family. He could cast a ballot in a
democratic election because he was a registered voter. He was not legally allowed to vote,
but he nevertheless intended to do so. A lawsuit was brought by the plaintiff against the
election judge on the grounds that Texas law had violated their rights. The passed legislation
forbade black voters from participating in Democratic Party elections. The court also came to
the conclusion that Texas' current law is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

In Ashrafilal v. Municipal Corporation of Agra, the court determined that by violating the
plaintiff's legal private right to vote and depriving him of his fundamental right to vote, the
defendant (the Municipal Corporation's authority) had caused legal injury to the plaintiff. In
light of this, the court decided to grant the plaintiff damages—that is, monetary
compensation. In this instance, election commission staffers wrongly left the plaintiff's name
(Ashrafilals) off the electoral register (from the list of candidates who could vote), denying
him the chance to exercise and enjoy his fundamental right as a citizen.

As a result of the plaintiff's legal right being infringed and resulting in an injury for which a
cause of action arises, the idea of Injuria Sine Damnum is adequately applicable. An
innkeeper is defined as the owner of a common inn where guests and travellers, as well as
their horses and servants, can stay and enjoy themselves for a fair price.

An owner of a private boarding or lodging facility, however, is not an innkeeper. A lodge

housekeeper enters into a contract with each man who enters, but an innkeeper is required
to provide lodging and entertainment for all guests at a fair price without entering into any

6
formal agreements. A hotel can be deemed an inn, and the hotelkeeper is liable as an
innkeeper.

CASE COMMENT

It was noted within the case of Constantine v. Imperial London Hotels Ltd. that the plaintiff, a
well knowns West Indian cricketer, suspect the defendants of failing to just accept and
accommodate visitors. He had reserved rooms at the defendant's hotel, however once he
got there the staff's antagonistic behaviour forced him to leave. He spent the night at another
of the defendant's hotels instead. The defendants admitted that they were unaware that that
they had done so, however they KS maintained that they had still provided him with alternate
housing, satisfying their commitment to him. Furthermore, they argued that the absence of
proof of utmost damage rendered the case lawfully inadmissible. According to Birkett J., it
had been tangential that the defendants had provided the complainant with different lodging
since he was glad with the evidence that they had refused to admit and lodge him.
Regarding the problem of special injury, the learned decide created the excellence between
trespass, wherever damage was plausible to own occurred once a strong arm act directly
damaged the plaintiff's person or property, and case, where the causative relationship was
less clear and damage was generally the most focus of the action. This restriction was
untangled underneath the law of defamation and malicious prosecution because of historical
concerns. The primary exception, however, is once the complaint ant has been the victim of
a violation of a standard law right. A remedy is implicit wherever a right exists. In Ashby v.
White (1703) two Ld. Raym. 938, Holt C.J. stated: "An injury imports a harm, when a person
is thereby empty his right." According to Birkett J., this case met the criteria for this idea and
may well be continuing even while not proof of remarkable injury. He was unwilling to grant
exemplary or vital damages, nonetheless, as a result of there was no such proof. The case
was set supported the innkeeper's duty's historical foundation. The learned choose was
ironed to follow Neville v. London categorical Newspaper, Ltd. [1919] A. C. 368 The majority
of the House of Lords terminated that, whereas the wrongdoing of maintenance was
prohibited, I t didn't breach the plaintiff's rights and thus wasn't unjust while not proof of

7
remarkable harm. However, the learned choose selected to ascertain the incident as a
breach of a typical law right and used the Ashby v. White standard. Although amends of 5
guineas were awarded, the matter was considerably a lot of severe in terms of reputation.
Nonetheless, Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd didn't establish without ambiguity that hotels
or landlords might not refuse rooms to clients based mostly just on their race as several post
war Caribbean refugees would presently discover creating such activities criminal would
want the adoption of legislation, as Reginald Sorensen MP suggested in reference to the
Constantine case in Gregorian calendar month 1943. Such, however, had no result till the
Race Relations Acts of 1965 and 1968, that self-addressed the problem directly. Rather than
subsiding the discrimination question, Constantine v Imperial Hotels showed the restrictions
of time period cosmopolitanism.

We are agree with Mr Justice Birkett held that a right of Constantine had been violated. It
was accepted that an innkeeper had a duty to provide reasonable accommodation, and
rejected that when the hotel offered to put Constantine at another lodge, this was fulfilling
that duty. Furthermore, even though no pecuniary damage transpired, the violation of the
right was in principle capable of conferring a remedy. He was awarded a small sum of five
guineas in damages.

8
REFERENCES:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_v_Imperial_Hotels_Ltd#:~:text=Constantine
%20v%20Imperial%20Hotels%20Ltd%20%5B1944%5D%20KB%20693%20is%20an,gue
st%20unless%20for%20just%20cause.