Justices said the dispute was centred on a report by a medical expert.
Lord Hodge said the expert said “on the balance of probabilities, the food or drink served at the hotel was the cause” of Mr Griffith’s illness, but Tui had not required the expert to attend a county court trial for cross-examination.
Tui’s lawyers then persuaded the trial judge that “deficiencies in the expert’s report” meant Mr Griffiths had “failed to prove his case”.
Lord Hodge concluded that Mr Griffiths had not had a fair trial, and the four other justices agreed.
Mr Griffiths, an IT consultant, said it was “delighted, but also very relieved” the Supreme Court found in his favour.
“Following so many years of litigation, my case has taken a toll on my family and I, but I now feel vindicated that justice has been served by the highest court in the land, allowing us to move on with our lives,” he said.
At an earlier stage in the case, Mr Griffith’s lawyers indicated any compensation awarded would be about £30,000.
Tui has been approached for comment.
