LEGAL ASPECTS IN

HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY
(DHM 2623)
Premises, Innkeepers
‘Right & Duties

BY PAVITHRA KRSHNA
LEARNING OUTCOME
● UNDERSTAND DUTY OF CARE
● UNDERSTAND DUTY TO PROVIDE SERVICE IN NON DISCRIMINATORY
MANNER
● INFER RIGHTS OF AN INNKEEPER
TABLE OF ● DUTY OF CARE

CONTENTS ● DUTY TO PROVIDE SERVICE

IN NON - DISCRIMINATORY
SERVICE
● RIGHTS OF AN INNKEEPER
INTRODUCTION
● Innkeeper or hotelier offers accommodation for money
● An innkeepers’ activities can certainly give rise to tortious liability.
● His employees’ carelessness may cause loss or injury to guests, and he may therefore
be vicariously liable in tort of negligence.
● Innkeeper may also be an ‘occupier’ of premises
(has a duty to ensure that his visitors are able to take care of their own safety)
● In this chapter, the focus will be on innkeepers’ duties in relation to 1. Guest, 2.
Traveller
DUTY OF CARE as a hospitality operator
- Hospitality operator owes duty of care to those individuals who enter into their
establishments.
- Eg : restaurateur has a duty to ensure that the food provided is safe for the guest
- Examples of duties of care of a hospitality operator :
- Provide a reasonably safe premise
- Serve food and beverages fit for consumption
- Hire qualified employees
- Train the employees
- Terminate employees who pose dangers to others
- Warn of unsafe conditions
- Safeguard guests’ property
Standard of care
- Reasonably accepted level of performance used in fulfilling duty of care
in the industry.
- Exp: Raja is a hotel manager. To determine whether Raja has breached his
duty towards the Pf, we do not compare him with the 5-star hotel manager
in the country. We judge Raja based on the standard of a reasonably skilled
hotel manager – where they would be quite careful in performing their
duties.

- If a reasonable manager wouldn’t have done what Raja did, he would have
been aware of the risk and take precaution against it, but if Raja failed to
do so, Raja would have been considered as breaching his duty of care.
Case: Phillips v Whiteley Ltd (1938) 1 All ER 566
F : Df was a jeweller. Pf went to him to have her ears pierced. The Df
followed the standard procedure required by a skilled jeweller. However, the
Pf later contracted a disease after the procedure.

D : The standard of care required of the defendant was that of a skilled

jeweller, he should not be compared to a medical practitioner. The Df had
met the standard required and not expected to take the same hygiene
measures as a doctor.
NEGLIGENCE
• Negligence is the causing of harm to another person through an
act or an omission (failure to do something).

• A plaintiff has to prove 4 elements in order to establish negligence :

1. Df owed Pf duty of care
2. Df breached the duty of care
3. Breach of duty caused the Pf’s damage
4. Damage was reasonably foreseeable
Example :
- A guest dives into a resort swimming pool and injures her neck.
- She thought the pool was deep enough for diving but the point at which she jumps is
only 4 ft deep.
- The pool was not marked in any way to indicate the water’s depth
- The resort management should have foresee that a guest would dive in the pool but
did nothing to put up a sign to prohibit diving or mark the water depth
- Their breach of duty has cause the injury, thus making the management liable for
negligence.
R v HIggins
● Facts: a family arrived at the defendant’s inn at Sunday lunchtime. The waiter
informed them that the inn would not serve anyone who had not made a reservation
● At the time, the restaurant were not full and there were vacant tables. The innkeeper
(Higgins) was charged for refusing to supply refreshments to a traveller contrary to
common law.
● Decision : an innkeeper may lawfully refuse to discharge this duty if he has
reasonable excuse.
● What amounts to reasonable excuse depends on the facts of the case.
● The court highlighted various factors that could constitute reasonable excuse
● For example, the innkeeper might have limited food supply which was intended for
existing guests.
● If serving walk-in customers would cause shortage of food supply for existing
customers then the innkeeper could turn them away
● R v Rymers : the court stated that an innkeeper has the right to turn away a person
with a dog, where the dog would cause alarm and annoyance to others.
● If the hotel allow pets, they usually impose additional charges.
R v RYMER
Facts: Rymer was the innkeeper of Sea House Hotel. Attached to the hotel was a
refreshment bar called Carlton. Cramer likes to go to the bar with his 2 dogs, where they
caused a mess. On one occasion, Cramer was refused refreshment. He brought an action
against Rymer.

Decision: Rymer had reasonable grounds for his refusal to serve- the dogs had caused
annoyance and discomfort to staff of the bar in the past.
LET’S WATCH A VIDEO
3. Duty to provide services in a non-discriminatory manner

● The person in treated less favourably due to his personal characteristics

● Such characteristics or grounds of discrimination include race (including ethnic or
national origins, colour and nationality),
● gender and sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, marital status,
disabilities, region or belief
Discrimination in the Hotel industry
● 1.Racial discrimination: (nationality,national or ethnic origins). It is unlawful to
refuse refreshment and/or accommodation to a person on the basis of his race.

Case: Constantine v Imperial London Hotels Ltd

● 2.Gender discrimination: it is discriminatory to refuse a woman services and
facilities that are afforded to men, and vice versa.

However, not all form of discrimination in the provision of services is barred. Eg :

Spa Muslimah
 Case: Gill v El Vino Co Ltd
- F: Women were not allowed to stand and drink at the bar
- D: There was a gender discrimination

● 3. Disability Discrimination: not necessarily discriminatory to limit disabled

persons to rooms on the lower floor to facilitate access. Not discriminatory to impose
additional fees provided the circumstances is necessary
4. DUTY TO RECORD GUESTS’
INFORMATION
● All innkeepers are required to record guests’ information according to the
Registration of Guests Act (RGA) 1965
● The record can be electronic or in the form of physical registration book(in the case
of family run homestay or bed and breakfast)
● The information that an innkeeper must record:

- name, address, occupatio,sex,and nationality

- IC(Malaysian), Passport(Non Malaysian)

- Date and time of departure

- Destination upon departure

- The last element is quite challenging as it is not easy to obtain information on where
the guest should go next
- Failure to record this information does not attract sanction although it is a punishable
offence under s4(1) of RGA 1965.
- Recording false information : not exceeding 1 year imprisonment or a fine not
exceeding RM 2,000 or both (s4)
RIGHTS OF AN INNKEEPER
1. Right to payment
- An innkeeper may demand payment in advance (online booking)
- A would-be guest makes a booking online through a hotel’s website and make an
advance payment online.

1. Right to control the inn

- An innkeeper has control over the hotel premises, including the rooms sold to guests.
- An innkeeper can enter an occupied room at any time
- Does not require guests’ permission to do so,but as a courtesy, innkeeper request entry
- Where a situation demands, an innkeeper may enter into a guest’s room, regardless of
whether they are absent or present
- An innkeeper may end the guests’ stay if they did not pay or overstay, or behave
badly that disrupt other guests.
- In the event of accident, an innkeeper may also need to remove a guest to the hospital
- Facilitate if there is death in the hotel
4. Right to deny admission of guests
- The individual cannot show the ability to pay for the services provided
- The individual has a readily communicable disease
- The individual wishes to enter with prohibited items
- The individual is intoxicated
- The individual presents a threat to others (staff and guest)
- The individual does not seek to become guest
- The hotel is full
 THE END
REMEMBER YOU ARE THE BEST!